Back to all available

Strict Avalanche Criterion of SHA-256 sub-function removed variants

cryptography
security-and-privacy

Abstract

The measure of diffusion, the property of dissipating patterns and statistical structures in cryptographic transformations, serves as a valuable heuristic for assessing the obscurity of patterns that could lead to collisions. As with many cryptographic hash functions, SHA-256 exhibits the property of diffusion as measured by the Strict Avalanche Criterion (SAC). While SHA-256's diffuse output is well documented, less is known about how the diffusion rate changes across the 64 rounds in its compression function nor how the algorithm's individual sub-functions contribute to the overall diffusion. The diffusion of the unmodified compression function is initially measured using the SAC, with the aim of understanding the alteration in diffusion across the 64 rounds of compression. The level to which sub-functions affect diffusion is subsequently measured, enabling potential prioritization of these sub-functions in future collision attacks. To accomplish this, the compression function is modified by removing sub-functions, and the diffusion of these new variants is measured. While all eventually meet the SAC, multiple variant functions diffuse at a slower rate.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.