News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Debunking NIST's calculation of the Kyber-512 security level. Parent comment

Re:Debunking NIST's calculation of the Kyber-512 security level by f33d5173 on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @06:31PM (#37758512)
A hash function is a (CS)PRNG. It has the key property, namely of being indistinguishable from randomness while being generated deterministically.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Debunking NIST's calculation of the Kyber-512 security level by tptacek on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @06:48PM (#37758643)
In fact, `echo "This is my seed" | openssl sha -sha256` is not really a CSPRNG. Hash functions are the bases of many PRNGs. But I think you're abusing an ambiguity with the word "random" here. At any rate: we should be clear now on the point being made about the P-curve seeds.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Debunking NIST's calculation of the Kyber-512 security level by Ar-Curunir on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @08:25PM (#37759408)
That is not true. There is no such requirement for a hash function.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Debunking NIST's calculation of the Kyber-512 security level by ethbr1 on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @09:16PM (#37759744)
Thread is talking about cryptographic hash functions, given the context
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Debunking NIST's calculation of the Kyber-512 security level by Ar-Curunir on Wednesday October 04, 2023 @01:15AM (#37761080)
Yes, they don’t output random looking things necessarily. For example a hash function could be collision resistant but not pre image resistant, or vice versa. There’s much more nuance in these definitions.
[ Parent | on HN ]