[Cryptography] Creating a Parallelizeable Cryptographic Hash Function

Bill Cox waywardgeek at gmail.com
Tue Oct 7 21:31:58 EDT 2014

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Ryan Carboni <ryacko at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hash trees are provably secure, and fastest on typical processors when
> parallelized.

Constant time update is asymptotically infinitely faster than log-time hash
trees for updates, and I think also provably secure.  Besides that, there
are plenty of real-world applications where constant time updates are
acceptable, but log(n) are not.

Is anyone here going to address my defence against Wagner's generalized
birthday attack?  By the way, Wagner is one of my heroes.  Defending
against even one of his attacks would be quite validating.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20141007/72232c57/attachment.html>

More information about the cryptography mailing list