Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Bytewords (BCR-2020-012) checksum #23

Closed
wolfmcnally opened this issue Jun 21, 2020 · 2 comments
Closed

Bytewords (BCR-2020-012) checksum #23

wolfmcnally opened this issue Jun 21, 2020 · 2 comments

Comments

@wolfmcnally
Copy link
Collaborator

wolfmcnally commented Jun 21, 2020 •
edited
Loading

The choice to use the first four bytes of a CRC32 hash of a Bytewords body is open for comment. This issue is being tracked here. Please leave your comments below.
@ChristopherA
Copy link
Contributor

My argument about using CRC32 vs a truncated hash is that the goal is error-detection, and for the same size of messages and CRC, there are proofs that it will detect more kinds of errors than a truncated hash function, which at best is 1/2 of its size, and a truncated hash is not provable. Hashes, in particular with HMAC constructions, have a different purpose than just error-detection, as they are used with encrypted data. Our data is not encrypted, so I believe it is a mistake for instance to use a truncated SHA-256.

However, as I'm not as expert on various CRC choices, thus we are open to input.

@wolfmcnally
Copy link
Collaborator Author

This has been open for over 8 months with no further comment, so I'm closing it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@ChristopherA @wolfmcnally