A cryptographic hash function is a deterministic procedure that takes an arbitrary block of data and returns a fixedsize bit string, the (cryptographic) hash value, such that an accidental or intentional change to the data will change the hash value. The data to be encoded is often called the "message", and the hash value is sometimes called the message digest or simply digest.
The ideal cryptographic hash function has four main or significant properties:
Cryptographic hash functions have many information security applications, notably in digital signatures, message authentication codes (MACs), and other forms of authentication. They can also be used as ordinary hash functions, to index data in hash tables, for fingerprinting, to detect duplicate data or uniquely identify files, and as checksums to detect accidental data corruption. Indeed, in information security contexts, cryptographic hash values are sometimes called (digital) fingerprints, checksums, or just hash values, even though all these terms stand for functions with rather different properties and purposes.
Contents 
Most cryptographic hash functions are designed to take a string of any length as input and produce a fixedlength hash value.
A cryptographic hash function must be able to withstand all known types of cryptanalytic attack. As a minimum, it must have the following properties:
These properties imply that a malicious adversary cannot replace or modify the input data without changing its digest. Thus, if two strings have the same digest, one can be very confident that they are identical.
A function meeting these criteria may still have undesirable properties. Currently popular cryptographic hash functions are vulnerable to lengthextension attacks: given h(m) and len(m) but not m, by choosing a suitable m' an attacker can calculate h (m  m'), where  denotes concatenation. This property can be used to break naive authentication schemes based on hash functions. The HMAC construction works around these problems.
Ideally, one may wish for even stronger conditions. It should be impossible for an adversary to find two messages with substantially similar digests; or to infer any useful information about the data, given only its digest. Therefore, a cryptographic hash function should behave as much as possible like a random function while still being deterministic and efficiently computable.
Checksum algorithms, such as CRC32 and other cyclic redundancy checks, are designed to meet much weaker requirements, and are generally unsuitable as cryptographic hash functions. For example, a CRC was used for message integrity in the WEP encryption standard, but an attack was readily discovered which exploited the linearity of the checksum.
In cryptographic practice, "hard" generally means "almost certainly beyond the reach of any adversary who must be prevented from breaking the system for as long as the security of the system is deemed important." The meaning of the term is therefore somewhat dependent on the application, since the effort that a malicious agent may put into the task is usually proportional to his expected gain. However, since the needed effort usually grows very quickly with the digest length, even a thousandfold advantage in processing power can be neutralized by adding a few dozen bits to the latter.
In some theoretical analyses "hard" has a specific mathematical meaning, such as not solvable in asymptotic polynomial time. Such interpretations of the word "hard" are important in the study of provably secure cryptographic hash functions but do not usually have a strong connection to practical security. For example, an exponential time algorithm can sometimes still be fast enough to make a feasible attack. Conversely, a polynomial time algorithm (e.g. one that requires n^{20} steps for ndigit keys) may be too slow for any practical use.
A typical use of a cryptographic hash would be as follows: Alice poses a tough math problem to Bob, and claims she has solved it. Bob would like to try it himself, but would yet like to be sure that Alice is not bluffing. Therefore, Alice writes down her solution, appends a random nonce, computes its hash and tells Bob the hash value (whilst keeping the solution and nonce secret). This way, when Bob comes up with the solution himself a few days later, Alice can prove that she had the solution earlier by revealing the nonce to Bob. (This is an example of a simple commitment scheme; in actual practice, Alice and Bob will often be computer programs, and the secret would be something less easily spoofed than a claimed puzzle solution).
Another important application of secure hashes is verification of message integrity. Determining whether any changes have been made to a message (or a file), for example, can be accomplished by comparing message digests calculated before, and after, transmission (or any other event).
A message digest can also serve as a means of reliably identifying a file; several source code management systems, including Git, Mercurial and Monotone, use the sha1sum of various types of content (file content, directory trees, ancestry information, etc) to uniquely identify them.
A related application is password verification. Passwords are usually not stored in cleartext, for obvious reasons, but instead in digest form. To authenticate a user, the password presented by the user is hashed and compared with the stored hash. This is sometimes referred to as oneway encryption.
For both security and performance reasons, most digital signature algorithms specify that only the digest of the message be "signed", not the entire message. Hash functions can also be used in the generation of pseudorandom bits.
Hashes are used to identify files on peertopeer filesharing networks. For example, in an ed2k link, an MD4variant hash is combined with the file size, providing sufficient information for locating file sources, downloading the file and verifying its contents. Magnet links are another example. Such file hashes are often the top hash of a hash list or a hash tree which allows for additional benefits.
There are several methods to use a block cipher to build a cryptographic hash function, specifically a oneway compression function.
The methods resemble the block cipher modes of operation usually used for encryption. All wellknown hash functions, including MD4, MD5, SHA1 and SHA2 are built from blockcipherlike components designed for the purpose, with feedback to ensure that the resulting function is not bijective. SHA3 finalists include functions with blockcipherlike components (e.g., Skein, BLAKE) and functions based on other designs (e.g., CubeHash, JH, Keccak).
A standard block cipher such as AES can be used in place of these custom block ciphers; this generally carries a cost in performance, but can be advantageous where a system needs to perform hashing and another cryptographic function such as encryption that might use a block cipher, but is constrained in the code size or hardware area it must fit into, such as in some embedded systems like smart cards.
A hash function must be able to process an arbitrarylength message into a fixedlength output. This can be achieved by breaking the input up into a series of equalsized blocks, and operating on them in sequence using a oneway compression function. The compression function can either be specially designed for hashing or be built from a block cipher. A hash function built with the MerkleDamgård construction is as resistant to collisions as is its compression function; any collision for the full hash function can be traced back to a collision in the compression function.
The last block processed should also be unambiguously length padded; this is crucial to the security of this construction. This construction is called the MerkleDamgård construction. Most widely used hash functions, including SHA1 and MD5, take this form.
The construction has certain inherent flaws, including lengthextension and generateandpaste attacks, and cannot be parallelized. As a result, many entrants in the current NIST hash function competition are built on different, sometimes novel, constructions.
Hash functions can be used to build other cryptographic primitives. For these other primitives to be cryptographically secure, care must be taken to build them correctly.
Message authentication codes (MACs) (also called keyed hash functions) are often built from hash functions. HMAC is such a MAC.
Just as block ciphers can be used to build hash functions, hash functions can be used to build block ciphers. LubyRackoff constructions using hash functions can be provably secure if the underlying hash function is secure. Also, many hash functions (including the SHA hash functions) are built by using a specialpurpose block cipher in a DaviesMeyer or other construction; that cipher can also be used in a conventional mode of operation, without the same security guarantees. See SHACAL, BEAR and LION.
Pseudorandom number generators (PRNGs) can be built using hash functions. This is done by combining a (secret) random seed with a counter and hashing it.
Some hash functions, such as Skein, Keccak, and RadioGatún output an arbitrarily long stream and can be used as a stream cipher; stream ciphers can also be built from fixedlength digest hash functions. Often this is done by first building a cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator and then using its stream of random bytes as keystream. SEAL is a stream cipher that uses SHA1 to generate internal tables, which are then used in a keystream generator more or less unrelated to the hash algorithm; SEAL is not guaranteed to be as strong (or weak) as SHA1.
Concatenating outputs from multiple hash functions provides collision resistance at least as good as the strongest of the algorithms included in the concatenated result.^{[1]} For example, SSL uses concatenated MD5 and SHA1 sums; that ensures that a method to find collisions in one of the functions doesn't allow forging traffic protected with both functions.
However, for MerkleDamgård hash functions, the concatenated function is not necessarily any more collisionresistant than its strongest component.^{[2]} Joux^{[3]} noted that 2collisions lead to ncollisions: if it is feasible to find two messages with the same MD5 hash, it is effectively no more difficult to find as many messages as the attacker desires with identical MD5 hashes. Among the n messages with the same MD5 hash, there is likely to be a collision in SHA1. The additional work needed to find the SHA1 collision (beyond the exponential birthday search) is polynomial. This argument is summarized by Finney.
There is a long list of cryptographic hash functions, although many have been found to be vulnerable and should not be used. Even if a hash function has never been broken, a successful attack against a weakened variant thereof may undermine the experts' confidence and lead to its abandonment. For instance, in August 2004 weaknesses were found in a number of hash functions that were popular at the time, including SHA0, RIPEMD, and MD5. This has called into question the longterm security of later algorithms which are derived from these hash functions — in particular, SHA1 (a strengthened version of SHA0), RIPEMD128, and RIPEMD160 (both strengthened versions of RIPEMD). Neither SHA0 nor RIPEMD are widely used since they were replaced by their strengthened versions.
As of 2009, the two most commonly used cryptographic hash functions are MD5 and SHA1. However, MD5 has been broken; an attack against it was used to break SSL in 2008.^{[4]}
SHA0 and SHA1 are members of the SHA family of hash functions developed by the NSA. In February 2005, a successful attack on SHA1 was reported, finding collisions in about 2^{69} hashing operations, rather than the 2^{80} expected for a 160bit hash function. In August 2005, another successful attack on SHA1 was reported, finding collisions in 2^{63} operations. Theoretical weaknesses of SHA1 exist as well,^{[5]}^{[6]} suggesting that it may be practical to break within years. New applications can avoid these problems by using more advanced members of the SHA family, such as SHA2, or using techniques such as randomized hashing^{[7]}^{[8]} that do not require collision resistance.
However, to ensure the longterm robustness of applications that use hash functions, there is a competition to design a replacement for SHA2, which will be given the name SHA3 and become a FIPS standard around 2012.^{[9]}
Some of the following algorithms are known to be insecure; consult the article for each specific algorithm for more information on the status of each algorithm. Note that this list does not include candidates in the current NIST hash function competition. For additional hash functions see the box at the bottom of the page.
Algorithm  Output size (bits)  Internal state size  Block size  Length size  Word size  Collision attacks (complexity)  Preimage attacks (complexity) 

GOST  256  256  256  256  32  No  
HAVAL  256/224/192/160/128  256  1024  64  32  Yes  
MD2  128  384  128  No  32  Almost  
MD4  128  128  512  64  32  Yes (2^{8})^{[10]}  With flaws (2^{102})^{[11]} 
MD5  128  128  512  64  32  Yes (2^{32})^{[12]}  No 
PANAMA  256  8736  256  No  32  Yes  
RadioGatún  Arbitrarily long  58 words  3 words  No  164  With flaws (2^{352} or 2^{704})^{[13]}  
RIPEMD  128  128  512  64  32  Yes  
RIPEMD128/256  128/256  128/256  512  64  32  No  
RIPEMD160/320  160/320  160/320  512  64  32  No  
SHA0  160  160  512  64  32  Yes (2^{39})^{[14]}  
SHA1  160  160  512  64  40  Proven (2^{63}), With flaws (2^{52})^{[15]}  No 
SHA256/224  256/224  256  512  64  32  No  No 
SHA512/384  512/384  512  1024  128  64  No  No 
Tiger(2)192/160/128  192/160/128  192  512  64  64  "Pseudonear collision"^{[16]}  
WHIRLPOOL  512  512  512  256  8  No 
Note: The internal state here means the "internal hash sum" after each compression of a data block. Most hash algorithms also internally use some additional variables such as length of the data compressed so far since that is needed for the length padding in the end. See the MerkleDamgård construction for details.

.]]
A cryptographic hash function is a transformation that takes an input (or 'message') and returns a fixedsize string, which is called the hash value (sometimes called a message digest, a digital fingerprint, a digest or a checksum).
The ideal hash function has three main properties:
Functions with these properties are used as hash functions for a variety of purposes, not only in cryptography. Practical applications include message integrity checks, digital signatures, authentication, and various information security applications.
A hash function takes a string of any length as input and produces a fixed length string which acts as a kind of "signature" for the data provided. In this way, a person knowing the "hash value" is unable to know the original message, but only the person who knows the original message can prove the "hash value" is created from that message.
A cryptographic hash function should behave as much as possible like a random function while still being deterministic and efficiently computable. A cryptographic hash function is considered "insecure" from a cryptographic point of view, if either of the following is computationally feasible:
An attacker who can find any of the above computations can use them to substitute an authorized message with an unauthorized one.
Ideally, it should be impossible to find two different messages whose digests ("hash values") are similar; nor would one want an attacker to be able to learn anything useful about a message given only its digest. Of course the attacker learns at least one piece of information, the digest itself, by which the attacker can recognise if the same message occurred (repeated) again.
In various standards and applications, the two most commonly used hash functions are MD5 and SHA1.
In 2005, security defects were identified showing that a possible mathematical weakness might exist, like attacks, and recommending a stronger hash function.
In 2007 the National Institute of Standards and Technology announced a contest to design a hash function which will be given the name SHA3 and be the subject of a FIPS standard.^{[1]}
Contents 
