<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Hash-Functions on Karpoke - Just Another Blog</title><link>http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/tags/hash-functions/</link><description>Recent content in Hash-Functions on Karpoke - Just Another Blog</description><generator>Hugo -- 0.167.0</generator><language>es</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:54:00 +0100</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/tags/hash-functions/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Why you should never use hash functions for message authentication</title><link>http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/2012/06/27/why-you-should-never-use-hash-functions-for-message-authentication/</link><pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2012 23:54:00 +0100</pubDate><guid>http://karpoke.ignaciocano.com/2012/06/27/why-you-should-never-use-hash-functions-for-message-authentication/</guid><description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The general thrust of this post is: use a MAC function like HMAC to
sign data, don’t use hash functions. Although not all hash functions
suffer from the problem I’m going to illustrate, in general using a
hash function for message authentication comes with a lot of potential
problems because those functions aren’t designed for this task. You
shouldn’t try to work around it by creatively processing the inputs or
inventing some fancy way of chaining hash functions. Just use the
functions that were designed for this task instead of inventing your
own crypto schemes.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>