MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3031215330

Some observations on the theory of cryptographic hash functions.

2001· preprint· en· W3031215330 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIACR Cryptology ePrint Archive · 2001
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCryptographic Implementations and Security
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHash functionRandom oracleCollision resistanceSecurity of cryptographic hash functionsCryptographic hash functionComputer scienceOracleSWIFFTFunction (biology)Theoretical computer scienceSHA-2CryptographyCryptographic primitiveCollision attackMathematicsDouble hashingAlgorithmComputer securityCryptographic protocolEncryptionProgramming languagePublic-key cryptography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study several issues related to the notion of "secure" hash functions. Several necessary conditions are considered, as well as a popular sufficient condition (the so-called random oracle model). We study the security of various problems that are motivated by the notion of a secure hash function. These problems are analyzed in the random oracle model, and we prove that the obvious trivial algorithms are optimal. As well, we look closely at reductions between various problems. In particular, we consider the important question "does preimage resistance imply collision resistance?". Finally, we study the relationship of the security of hash functions built using the Merkle-Damgard construction to the security of the underlying compression function.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.530
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it