Survey Paper on Different Type of Hashing Algorithm

ABSTRACT--Hash functions are essential tools for online data security. The hashing
capabilities that are employed in various security-related

Cryptographic hash capacities are applications.

They take into account the subjective length of information and provide a typically
small, consistent size yield, which is referred to as the message process. They are meant
to provide message uprightness, meaning that in the unlikely event that the message has
been altered after it has been transmitted by the sender and before it may be received
by the receiver for comparison, the collector can follow along and dispose of the
modified message. Additionally, this feature is useful in a variety of applications, such as
the creation of computerised signatures and arbitrary number age, among others. The
great majority of hash capabilities, for as MD-5, SHA-1, SHA2, SHA3, and so on, rely
on Merkle-Damgard development and are unquestionably not completely secure against
attacks. A handful of the potential attacks on this development are examined in the
study, and these hash capacity subsequently face similar attacks.
Keywords: MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-3, and hashing algorithms

I INTRODUCTION

A cryptographic hash work is a unique kind of hash work with specific characteristics that
make it suitable for use in cryptography. This numerical computation, which is meant to have
a constrained capacity—that is, a capacity that cannot be altered—maps subjectively sized
information to a bit string of a fixed size (a hash). Attempting a beast limited inquiry of
potential contributions to see whether they produce a match or using a rainbow table of
coordinated hashes are the greatest ways to replicate the information from a perfect
cryptographic hash capacity's yield. One-way hash algorithms are "the workhorses of current
cryptography," according to Bruce Schneier.The yield, also known as the hash esteem or
hash, is sometimes referred to as the message process or just the process, whereas the
information is commonly referred to as the message. There are five fundamental
characteristics of the ideal cryptographic hash work:
Because it is deterministic, a comparable hash will always result from a similar message.
(2) For any given message, it quickly registers the hash and incentive.
(3) Unless every possible message is tried, it is impossible to generate a message from its
hash that offers an incentive.
(4) A small alteration to a message should cause the hash value to shift so widely that it
appears to be unrelated to the previous hash value.
(5) Finding two different messages with the same hash value is impossible.

1.1 Hashing
Hashing is a type of algorithm that transforms data of any size into data with a
predetermined size. A hash is irreversible, which is the fundamental difference between
hashing and encryption. For hashing, hash capabilities are used. Any capability that can
be used to define the subjective size of information of an established measure is called a
hash work. Hash codes, hash values, hash entireties, or hashes are the terms used to
describe the hash work's output.
The following requirements should be met by a hash function:
a) The hash value of two different messages should not be the same.
The hash capacity should be protected from impact in this way.
b) Given a hash value, creating the corresponding message should be challenging or, at
the very least, challenging. The hash capacity should have pre-picture protection in this
way.
1.2 Hashing Algorithms
a) MD5: This approach creates a message process of 128 bits, or 16 bytes, from
information of self-assertive length.
The information message is divided into 512-piece squares using this procedure. The
message length is 64 bits, not quite different from 512, because it is cushioned by a 1
followed by zeros. The remaining 64 bits are loaded to correspond to the length of the
distinct message. Despite being widely used, this hashing technique has a tendency to
crash. However, the impact attack is eventually too passive to be of any use. This has
been loosened with regard to crashes, but not with regard to pre- or second-pre-pictures.

b) SHA1: It's not that easy to cause SHA-1 crashes. It seems reasonable that the attack
that has been shown on SHA-1 actually functions with a typical cost of 261, which is far
faster than the generic birthday attack (which is in 280), but it is also quite problematic.
Given that it contains more adjustments and that the induction of the 80 message words in
SHA-1 is far more "blending" than in MD5, I could argue—with a good deal of hand-
waving—that SHA-1 is more potent than MD5. Even if some attacks on SHA1 are known
to exist, they are far less authentic than those on MD5.Because of this, in many situations,
SHA1 is a far better option than MD5.

c) SHA2: Any length of string can be reduced to a message process using the secure hash
method in Secured Hash Work 2. Six hash capacities with hash esteems of 224, 256, 384,
or 512 bits are part of the SHA-2 family: SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512, SHA-
512/224, and SHA512/256. The message is "cushioned" with a 1 and an equal number of
0s in this procedure in order to reduce the message length to 64 bits, which is not quite an
even multiple of 512.
A 64-bit string that indicates the length of the unique message is appended to the buffered
message's end. Squares of 512 pieces are used to prepare the cushioned message.

d) SHA3: Following an open competition among non-NSA planners, the NSA selected
the cryptographic hashing algorithm SHA-3 in 2012. The SHA-3 hashing algorithm was
formerly known as keccak before the opposition's effects. Keccak was renamed to SHA-3
whenever it emerged as the winner of the SHA-3 contest. Even though SHA-3 supports
hash lengths that are comparable to those of SHA-2, its internal structure is completely
different and resistant to attacks like length extension, which both MD5 and SHA-1 were
ultimately unable to withstand. Given the potential theoretical attacks against SHA-2, the
SHA-3 algorithm was developed primarily to counter these threats.
Although no concrete evidence exposing SHA-2's flaws has been presented, it is
undeniable that it is possible.

II LITERATURE SURVEY
1) This review paper considers different hashing techniques and their drawbacks. To
avoid attacks, the client needs to be aware of the different types of attacks and use
appropriate hashing calculations [1].
2) This research study compares and contrasts various secure hashing techniques.
Every algorithm seizes the best chance for the hash-esteem algorithm. We can
combine the most secure hashing algorithm with an organised security algorithm to
increase the security of the data being sent by tracking the amount of time needed by
each of these algorithms and identifying the one that will take the least amount of
time for the hash algorithm [7].
3) We have discussed a number of cryptographic hash algorithms and their underlying
principles in this examination. Processing the hash as an incentive for any given
message is not difficult at all, and modifying a message without altering the hash is
not practical. Numerous data security applications use cryptographic hash capabilities,
most notably in computerised markings, message verification codes (MACs), and
various forms of verification. In instance, by making appropriate adjustments to the
hashing schemes, cryptographic hashing algorithms can be rendered non-
cryptographic. The investigative team working in the domains of data security and
systems administration will benefit from this audit report [6].
4) This study suggests that SHA algorithms should be given more importance than
MD5 as their performance surpasses that of other cryptographic hash algorithms. New
research would soon be conducted with a similar finding, and additional data would
be gathered that may serve as a catalyst for creative testing of the cryptographic
hashing methods. This would result in SHA algorithms—particularly cryptographic
hash algorithms—gaining unquestionably accepted dominance [5].
5) Because the execution rate of SHA algorithms is also higher than that of other
cryptographic hash algorithm capabilities, this comparative analysis enabled us to
understand that the SHA algorithm plays a crucial role in comparison to MD5. In
order to outdo both universes, we suggest using twofold hashing to store passwords in
a future study.
Additional data would be created that could be used as a conceptual framework for
the cryptographic hashing methods' mechanical testing. This would have the drastic
effect of making use of hashing and significantly improving the security of secret
words [4].
6) A packed representation of a message is processed using the Secure Hash
Algorithm (SHA-1). A 160-piece yield known as the message process is produced
when we provide an information message with a discretionary length of less than 264
bits. Since it is practically impossible to decipher the message by comparing it to a
specific message process, the SHA1 algorithm is said to be secure. Furthermore, it is
extremely improbable that two messages with comparable hashes will be recognised.
In this sense, the great majority of people still use SHA1 or even MD5, whether it is
flawed or not, today. Given the current state of hashing craftsmanship, there are
several problematic capabilities that we know very little about by any means, and a
few capacities that we know have theoretically vulnerabilities but no real-world
breaks. Even if there has never been a successful completion impact using SHA1, it
will eventually become possible because to advancements in our PCs' estimation
restrictions. In keeping with this, massive corporations like Google, Microsoft, and
others want to kill SHA-1 soon in order to increase the security of the web [2].
7) The widespread perception of algorithms based on hash work was closed by this
effort. All uprightness algorithms, with the exception of SHA-2, have been found to
be brittle; nonetheless, they are not time-effective. SHA-1 hashing algorithm in terms
of the number of brute force attacks that are anticipated to break it, and it is also fast
in comparison to other secure hash algorithms.
Many scientists have developed their own algorithms, but none of them are as time-
efficient as SHA-1. Moreover, there is a chance to improve the algorithms' internal
quality. In the not-too-distant future, we can develop an algorithm that, in comparison
to current algorithms, is more secure, takes less time, and has better piece distinction
[8].

Algorithms and Limitations

SHA-1: This calls for a significant amount of processing power and resources.
SHA-2: SHA256 and SHA512 generate longer outputs (256b and 512b, respectively)
than SHA1 due to their increased collision resistance (160b). This larger output size is
cited by some who support the usage of SHA2 as the cause of attack resistance.
SHA-3: While bcrypt is intended to be a password-hashing scheme (PHS), SHA-3 is
intended to be a good hash function rather than a PHS.
MD5: It is not a good idea to use salted MD5 for passwords. Not because of MD5's
cryptographic flaws, but rather due to its speed.
This implies that an attacker can use a single GPU to test billions of potential
passwords every second.

III CONCLUSION
We have discussed several cryptographic hash algorithms and their underlying
principles in this paper. In order to determine whether or not the message has been
altered, we retain the hash value by applying various hashing algorithms in various
scenarios. Here, it is discussed whether algorithm is better suited for the specific
message. In this study, we examined some of the drawbacks of SHA-1, SHA-2, SHA-
3, and MD5.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I want to specifically thank our dean, Dr. Jagadeesh Kannan, for his guidance and
assistance in helping me comprehend hashing algorithms. This also enabled me to
conduct extensive research and learn a great deal of fresh information for which I am
truly grateful.

REFERENCES
[1] G. Tejaswini Bhorkar, "Understanding Password Attacks and Secure Hashing
Techniques" Volume 04, Issue 12 of the International Research Journal of Engineering
and Technology (IRJET), 2017
In [2] Bharati Chaitya and Drashti R. Panchal The review paper for Secure Hash
Algorithm-1 International Journal of Engineering and Technology Advancement,
Volume 2, Issue X, October 2014
[3]. Puru Joshi, Ankit Kumar Jain, Rohit Jones, "A Study of Cryptographic Hashing
Algorithms for Signing Messages"
From April to June 2017, IJCST Vol. 8, Issue 2.
[4]. Thomas C.G., Jose Robin Thomas, "A Comparative Analysis of Various Hashing
Algorithms" International Journal of Computer and Communication Engineering,
Special Issue 7, October 2015, Vol. 3,
The fifth A review of a comparative analysis of the MD5 and SHA security algorithms
was published in October 2014 by Surbhi Aggarwal, Neha Goyal, and Kirti Aggarwal
in the International Journal of Computer Applications (0975–8887), Volume 104–
No.14.
[6] "Theoretical Survey on Secure Hash Functions and Issues," "International Journal
of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT)," Vol. 2, Issue 10, October 2013,
ISSN: 2278-0181
Priyanka Vadhera and Bhumika Lall, "A Review of Secure Hashing Algorithms and
Their Variants" [7] ISSN (Online): 2319-7064 International Journal of Science and
Research (IJSR) Factor of Impact (2012): 3.358
In [8] G. S. Prajapati, Sandhya Verma, The article "A Survey of Cryptographic Hash
Algorithms and Issues" was published in the International Journal of Computer
Security & Source Code Analysis (IJCSSCA) in 2015.