Thank you very much Bill, I was getting super confused on what would be the starting values of r and c, which you explained were zero. That cleared it up for me. I saw so many videos for sha3 but none have explained the starting values of r and c as clearly as you have. This video cleared all doubts I had on how sha3 works.
I've been reading "FIPS PUB 202" specification because I am attempting to implement SHA3 in Ada 2012 and a question arises that I cannot find an answer to in the spec... At what point does the value of "b" need to be decided? My implementation is almost finished but for this small detail. It's been a fascinating exercise, working through a difficult programming task in a language I'm not familiar with.
Why are collisions important? It's not like you can get the same hash as original with a fake and meaningful document? It's almost certain it's gonna be a bunch of nonsense?
In MD5 (128-bit hash), it is possible to create valid images and documents with the same hash. It has been shown to be possible with SHA-1, too. There are tools which can easily create a fake program with a valid MD5 hash using the Birthday Attack.
Вы похоже совсем не поняли о чем он ? sha3/keccak безопаснее и быстрее чем sha256, имеет большую пропускную способность и лучшее мат распределение как hash функция, меньше операций-лучше результат, по сути потребляет меньше энергии. - Ethash в этом плане не эффективен, не безопасен, не доказана математическая стойкость, плохо с описаниями и стандартизацией, по сути там чисто ситетическое усложнение которое замедляет и делает работу менее эффективной.
Great explanation.
It makes sense now why they call it "Sponge", "Absorb" and "Squeeze"!
Thank you very much Bill, I was getting super confused on what would be the starting values of r and c, which you explained were zero. That cleared it up for me. I saw so many videos for sha3 but none have explained the starting values of r and c as clearly as you have. This video cleared all doubts I had on how sha3 works.
thank you for making this available to us plebs Bill
Superb explanation.
Very brief, to the point, easy to be understood explanation + saved my time. Many thanks professor
Great work, you helped me to understand keccak.
this helped me a lot, thank you
Thank you.
Thanks @Bill Buchanan OBE ! you did amazing and useful analysis !
Awesome explanation. Thank you.
I've been reading "FIPS PUB 202" specification because I am attempting to implement SHA3 in Ada 2012 and a question arises that I cannot find an answer to in the spec... At what point does the value of "b" need to be decided? My implementation is almost finished but for this small detail. It's been a fascinating exercise, working through a difficult programming task in a language I'm not familiar with.
Thank you sir !
Great explanation.
The only thing I didn't understand is what is the purpose of c?
Thanks
Thanks sir
hello mr bill... i need ur answer
can we get hash of massage of etherume rawtx
as we do for bitcoin???
Why is only the "rate" portion of the state used as output?
What is weakness of sha 2 ? My mind very weak
more rounds(64), but worst results, higher change of collision, higher complexity of implementations, less speed/performance.
Why are collisions important? It's not like you can get the same hash as original with a fake and meaningful document? It's almost certain it's gonna be a bunch of nonsense?
In MD5 (128-bit hash), it is possible to create valid images and documents with the same hash. It has been shown to be possible with SHA-1, too. There are tools which can easily create a fake program with a valid MD5 hash using the Birthday Attack.
@@BillBuchanan Oh, I wasn't aware we were there yet. Thanks for the info.
Какой нахер Кесак и sha...ETHhash
Вы похоже совсем не поняли о чем он ? sha3/keccak безопаснее и быстрее чем sha256, имеет большую пропускную способность и лучшее мат распределение как hash функция, меньше операций-лучше результат, по сути потребляет меньше энергии.
- Ethash в этом плане не эффективен, не безопасен, не доказана математическая стойкость, плохо с описаниями и стандартизацией, по сути там чисто ситетическое усложнение которое замедляет и делает работу менее эффективной.