Is the file hashing/checksum value case insensitive? - powershell

My question is only about file hashing rather than hashing function in general. My assumption is that the value of a file checksum/hashing is case insensitive. My concern is that I cannot find any online documentation to confirm that. I only got the following two points to support my claim.
This link contains some file hash values. None of them contains any capital letter. https://www.virtualbox.org/download/hashes/6.1.2/SHA256SUMS
When I use Powershell Get-FileHash cmdlet, all returns are capitals. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/microsoft.powershell.utility/get-filehash?view=powershell-7
Can anyone help me confirm my assumption, and provide some documentation on files in Windows as well as in Linux OS?

Hashes and checksums are often presented in hexadecimal notation. Although it is common to use upper case A-F instead of lower case a-f, it does not make any difference.
As for a reference, the question is so basic that it's hard to find a solid reference. One is ISO/IEC 9899 standard for the C programming language:
A hexadecimal constant consists of the prefix 0x or 0X followed by a
sequence of the decimal digits and the letters a (or A) through f (or
F) with values 10 through 15 respectively.
In some use cases, such as CSS lower case might be preferred, as it is more pleasant to read among other lower case characters. .Net's Int32.ToString supports standard numeric formaters. x for lower case, X for upper case.
In System.Convert, there's ToInt32 that will convert values from one base into 32 bit integers. Let's see how hex digit AA is converted to decimal in different cases. Like so,
[convert]::toint32("aa", 16)
170
[convert]::toint32("AA", 16)
170
[convert]::toint32("aA", 16)
170
[convert]::toint32("Aa", 16)
170
Every letter case combination represents the same decimal value, 170. Don't try this on hashes though, as those are usually larger than 32 bit integers.

My question is only about file hashing rather than hashing function in general. My assumption is that the value of a file checksum/hashing is case insensitive.
Hashes are byte sequences, they don't have case at all.
Hashes are generally encoded as hexadecimal for display, for which the 6 "letters" (a to f) can be either case. That's mostly a style issue though I've known system which did object when getting the "wrong" case (some would only accept lowercase, others only uppercase).
Also beware that e.g. it's not unheard of to store or show hashes as base64 where case is relevant. Without knowing why you're asking (e.g. is it idle musing, or do you have an actual use case) it's hard to answer completely categorically.

Related

Are there any real alternatives to unicode?

As a C++ developer supporting unicode is, putting it mildly, a pain in the butt. Unicode has a few unfortunate properties that makes it very hard to determine the case of a letter, convert them or pretty much anything beyond identifying a single known codepoint or so (which may or may not be a letter). The only real rescue, it seems, is ICU for those who are unfortunate enough to not have unicode support builtin the language (i.e. C and C++). Support for unicode in other languages may or may not be good enough.
So, I thought, there must be a real alternative to unicode! i.e. an encoding that does allow easy identification of character classes, besides having a lookup datastructure (tree, table, whatever), and identifying the relationship between characters? I suspect that any such encoding would likely be multi-byte for most text -- that's not a real concern to me, but I accept that it is for others. Providing such an encoding is a lot of work, so I'm not really expecting any such encoding to exist 😞.
Short answer: not that I know of.
As a non-C++ developer, I don't know what specifically is a pain about Unicode, but since you didn't tag the question with C++, I still dare to attempt an answer.
While I'm personally very happy about Unicode in general, I agree that some aspects are cumbersome.
Some of them could arguably be improved if Unicode was redesigned from scratch, eg. by removing some redundancies like the "Latin Greek" math letters besides the actual Greek ones (but that would also break compatibility with older encodings).
But most of the "pains" just reflect the chaotic usage of writing in the first place.
You mention yourself the problem of uppercase "i", which is "I" in some, "İ" in other orthographies, but there are tons of other difficulties – eg. German "ß", which is lowercase, but has no uppercase equivalent (well, it has now, but is rarely used); or letters that look different in final position (Greek "σ"/"ς"); or quotes with inverted meaning («French style» vs. »Swiss style«, “English” vs. „German style“)... I could continue for a while.
I don't see how an encoding could help with that, other than providing tables of character properties, equivalences, and relations, which is what Unicode does.
You say in comments that, by looking at the bytes of an encoded character, you want it to tell you if it's upper or lower case.
To me, this sounds like saying: "When I look at a number, I want it to tell me if it's prime."
I mean, not even ASCII codes tell you if they are upper or lower case, you just memorised the properties table which tells you that 41..5A is upper, 61..7A is lower case.
But it's hard to memorise or hardcode these ranges for all 120k Unicode codepoints. So the easiest thing is to use a table look-up.
There's also a bit of confusion about what "encoding" means.
Unicode doesn't define any byte representation, it only assigns codepoints, ie. integers, to character definitions, and it maintains the said tables.
Encodings in the strict sense ("codecs") are the transformation formats (UTF-8 etc.), which define a mapping between the codepoints and their byte representation.
Now it would be possible to define a new UTF which maps codepoints to bytes in a way that provides a pattern for upper/lower case.
But what could that be?
Odd for upper, even for lower case?
But what about letters without upper-/lower-case distinction?
And then, characters that aren't letters?
And what about all the other character categories – punctuation, digits, whitespace, symbols, combining diacritics –, why not represent those as well?
You could put each in a predefined range, but what happens if too many new characters are added to one of the categories?
To sum it up: I don't think what you ask for is possible.

Why can't we store Unicode directly?

I read some article about Unicode and UTF-8.
The Unicode standard describes how characters are represented by code points. A code point is an integer value, usually denoted in base 16. In the standard, a code point is written using the notation U+12CA to mean the character with value 0x12ca (4,810 decimal). The Unicode standard contains a lot of tables listing characters and their corresponding code points:
Strictly, these definitions imply that it’s meaningless to say ‘this is character U+12CA‘. U+12CA is a code point, which represents some particular character; in this case, it represents the character ‘ETHIOPIC SYLLABLE WI’. In informal contexts, this distinction between code points and characters will sometimes be forgotten.
To summarize the previous section: a Unicode string is a sequence of code points, which are numbers from 0 through 0x10FFFF (1,114,111 decimal). This sequence needs to be represented as a set of bytes (meaning, values from 0 through 255) in memory. The rules for translating a Unicode string into a sequence of bytes are called an encoding.
I wonder why we have to encode U+12CA to UTF-8 or UTF-16 instead of saving the binary of 12CA in the disk directly. I think the reason is:
Unicode is not Self-synchronizing code, so if
10 represent A
110 represent B
10110 represent C
When I see 10110 in the disk we can't tell it's A and B or just C.
Unicode uses much more space instead of UTF-8 or UTF-16.
Am I right?
Read about Unicode, UTF-8 and the UTF-8 everywhere website.
There are more than a million Unicode code-points (you mentionned 1,114,111...). So you need at least 21 bits to be able to separate all of them (since 221 > 1114111).
So you can store Unicode characters directly, if you represent each of them by a wide enough integral type. In practice, that type would be some 32 bits integer (because it is not convenient to handle 3-bytes i.e. 24 bits integers). This is called UCS-4 and some systems or software do already handle their Unicode string in such a format.
Notice also that displaying Unicode strings is quite difficult, because of the variety of human languages (and also since Unicode has combining characters). Some need to be displayed right to left (Arabic, Hebrew, ....), others left to right (English, French, Spanish, German, Russian ...), and some top to down (Chinese, ...). A library displaying Unicode strings should be capable of displaying a string containing English, Chinese and Arabic words.... Then you see that decoding UTF-8 is the easy part of Unicode string displaying (and storing UCS-4 strings won't help much).
But, since English is the dominant language in IT technology (for economical reasons), it is very often cheaper to keep strings in UTF8 form. If most of the strings handled by your system are English (or in some other European language using the Latin alphabet), it is cheaper and it takes less space to keep them in UTF-8.
I guess than when China will become a dominant power in IT, things might change (or maybe not).
(I have no idea of the most common encoding used today on Chinese supercomputers or smartphones; I guess it is still UTF-8)
In practice, use a library (perhaps libunistring or Glib in C), to process UTF-8 strings and another one (e.g. pango and GTK in C) to display them. You'll find many Unicode related libraries in various programming languages.
I wonder why we have to encode U+12CA to UTF-8 or UTF-16 instead of saving the binary of 12CA in the disk directly.
How do you write 12CA to a disk directly? It is a bigger value than a byte can hold, so you need to write at least two bytes. Do you write 12 followed by CA? You just encoded it in UTF-16BE. That's what an encoding is...a definition of how to write an abstract number as bytes.
Other reading:
The Absolute Minimum Every Software Developer Absolutely, Positively Must Know About Unicode and Character Sets (No Excuses!)
Pragmatic Unicode
For good and specific reasons, Unicode doesn't specify any particular encoding. If it makes sense for your scenario, you can specify your own.
Because Unicode doesn't specify any serialization, there is no way to "directly" store Unicode, just like you can't "directly" store a mathematical number or a flow chart to implement a program you designed. The question isn't really well-defined.
There are a number of existing serialization formats (encodings) so it is very likely that it makes the most sense to use an existing one unless your requirements are significantly different than what any existing encoding provides; even then, is it really worth the cost?
A stream of bits is just a stream of bits. Conventionally, we chop them up into groups of 8 and call that a "byte" and the latter half of your question is really "if it's not a byte, how can you tell which bits belong to which symbol?" There are many ways to do that, but the common ones generally define a sequence of some particular length (8, 16, and 32 are often convenient for reasons of compatibility with bus width on modern computers etc) but again, if you really wanted to, you could come up with something different. Huffman trees come to mind as one way to implement a way to communicate a structure of variable length (and is used for precisely that in many compression algorithms).
Consider one situation, even if you can directly save unicode binary into disk and close the file, what happens when you open the file again? It's just a bunch of binary, you don't know how many bytes a char occupied right, which means, if '🥶'(U+129398) and 'A' are the content of your file, then if you take it 1 byte for a char, then '🥶' can't be decoded correctly, which takes 2 bytes, then instead 1 emoji you see, you get two, which is U+63862 and U+65536 unicode char.

Is there a number prefix like '0' or '0x' for base 10?

I just wrote a script which parses numbers of a defined length, which often include leading 0s
Of course, if I don't remove those 0s, they are interpreted as a prefix meaning my number is written in octal, which isn't handy at all (and already caused me troubles, in other contexts).
i.e. 011 is read as "9" in decimal
For that reason, I was wondering whether such a prefix exists, and in which languages.
Seems to me that "obviousness" led to incompletness.
I thought prefixing numbers with a "d" would make them read as base 10, but it doesn't seem to be the case in bash. (Maybe in C or Java ?)
Octal and hexadecimal prefixes work about everywhere, and thinking about it, I'm quite surprised such a prefix doesn't seem to exist for decimal number.
Is that a fact, or do I ignore an easy way of avoiding such parsing problems ?

What is the limit to encoding base in case of Unicode strings as opposed to base64 having base = 64?

This is actually related to code golf in general, but also appliable elsewhere. People commonly use base64 encoding to store large amounts of binary data in source code.
Assuming all programming languages to be happy to read Unicode source code, what is the max N, for which we can reliably devise a baseN encoding?
Reliability here means being able to encode/decode any data, so every single combination of input bytes can be encoded, and then decoded. The encoded form is free from this rule.
The main goal is to minimize the character count, regardless of byte-count.
Would it be base2147483647 (32-bit) ?
Also, because I know it may vary from browser-to-browser, and we already have problems with copy-pasting code from codegolf answers to our editors, the copy-paste-ability is also a factor here. I know there is a Unicode range of characters that are not displayed.
NOTE:
I know that for binary data, base64 usually expands data, but here the character-count is the main factor.
It really depends on how reliable you want the encoding to be. Character encodings are designed with trade-offs, and in general the more characters allowed, the less likely it is to be universally accepted i.e. less reliable. Base64 isn't immune to this. RFC 3548, published in 2003, mentions that case sensitivity may be an issue, and that the characters + and / may be problematic in certain scenarios. It describes Base32 (no lowercase) and Base16 (hex digits) as potentially safer alternatives.
It does not get better with Unicode. Adding that many characters introduces many more possible points of failure. Depending on how stringent your requirements are, you might have different values for N. I'll cover a few possibilities from large N to small N, adding a requirement each time.
1,114,112: Code points. This is the number of possible code points defined by the Unicode Standard.
1,112,064: Valid UTF. This excludes the surrogates which cannot stand on their own.
1,111,998: Valid for exchange between processes. Unicode reserves 66 code points as permanent non-characters for internal use only. Theoretically, this is the maximum N you could justifiably expect for your copy-paste scenario, but as you noted, in practice many other Unicode strings will fail that exercise.
120,503: Printable characters only, depending on your definition. I've defined it to be all characters outside of the Other and Separator general categories. Also, starting from this bullet point, N is subject to change in future versions of Unicode.
103,595: NFKD normalized Unicode. Unfortunately, many processes automatically normalize Unicode input to a standardized form. If the process used NFKC or NFKD, some information may have been lost. For more reliability, the encoding should thus define a normalization form, with NFKD being better for increasing character count
101,684: No combining characters. These are "characters" which shouldn't stand on their own, such as accents, and are meant to be combined with another base character. Some processes might panic if they are left standing alone, or if there are too many combining characters on a single base character. I've now excluded the Mark category.
85: ASCII85, aka. I want my ASCII back. Okay, this is no longer Unicode, but I felt like mentioning it because it's a lesser known ASCII-only encoding. It's mainly used in Adobe's PostScript and PDF formats, and has a 5:4 encoded data size increase, rather than Base64's 4:3 ratio.

Looking for a good 64 bit hash for file paths in UTF16

I have a Unicode / UTF-16 encoded path. the path delimiters is U+005C '\'.
The paths are null-terminated root relative windows file system paths, e.g. "\windows\system32\drivers\myDriver32.sys"
I want to hash this path into a 64-bit unsigned integer.
It does not need to be "cryptographically sound".
The hashes should be case insensitive, but able to handle non-ascii letters.
Obviously, the hash also should scatter well.
There are some ideas that I had though of:
A) Using the windows file identifier as a "hash". In my case i do want the hash to change if the file gets moved, so this is not an option.
B) Just use a regular sting hash: hash += prime * hash + codepoint for the whole string.
I do have the feeling that the fact that the path consists of "segements" (folder names and the final file name) can be leveraged.
To sum up the needs:
1) 64bit hash
2) good distribution / few collisions for file system paths.
3) efficient
4) does not need to be secure
5) case insensitive
I would just use something straightforward. I don't know what language you are using, so the following is pseudocode:
ui64 res = 10000019;
for(i = 0; i < len; i += 2)
{
ui64 merge = ucase(path[i]) * 65536 + ucase(path[i + 1]);
res = res * 8191 + merge; // unchecked arithmetic
}
return res;
I'm assuming that path[i + 1] is safe on the basis that if len is odd then in the last case it will read the U+0000 safely.
I wouldn't make use of the fact that there are gaps caused by the gaps in UTF-16, by lower-case and title-case characters, and by characters invalid for paths, because these are not distributed in a way to make use of this fact something that could be used speedily. Dropping by 32 (all chars below U+0032 are invalid in path names) wouldn't be too expensive, but it wouldn't improve the hashing too much either.
Cryptographically secure hashes might not be very efficient in terms of speed, but there are implementations available for virtually any programming language.
Whether using them is feasible for your application depends on how much you depend on speed – a benchmark would give you an appropriate answer to that.
You could use a sub-string of such a hash, e.g. MD5 on your path, previously converted to lower case so that the hash is effectively case-insensitive (requires that you use a method for lower-casing which knows how to convert all UTF-16 non-standard characters that may occur in the file system).
Cryptographically secure hashes have the benefit of quite even distribution no matter which sub-string part you take because they are designed to be non-predictable, i.e. each part of the hash ideally depends on the entire hashed data as any other part of it.
Even if you do not need a cryptographic hash, you can still use one, and since your problem is not about security, then a "broken" cryptographic hash would be fine. I suggest MD4, which is quite fast. On my PC (a 2.4 GHz Core2 system, using a single core), MD4 hashes more than 700 MB/s, and even for small inputs (less than 50 bytes) it can process about 8 millions messages par second. You may find faster non-cryptographic hashes, but it already takes a rather specific situation for it to make a measurable difference.
For the specific properties you are after, you would need:
To "normalize" characters so that uppercase letters are converted to lowercase (for case insensitivity). Note that, generally speaking, case-insensitivity in the Unicode world is not an easy task. From what you explain, I gather that you are only after the same kind of case-insensitivity that Windows uses for file accesses (I think that it is ASCII-only, so conversion uppercase->lowercase is simple).
To truncate the output of MD4. MD4 produces 128 bits; just use the first 64 bits. This will be as scattered as you could wish for.
There are MD4 implementations available in may places, including right in the RFC 1320 I link to above. You may also find opensource MD4 implementations in C and Java in sphlib.
You could just create a shared library in C# and use the FileInfo class to obtain the full path of a directory or file. Then use .GetHashCode() in the path, like this:
Hash = fullPath.GetHashCode();
or
int getHashCode(string uri)
{
if (uri == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(uri));
FileInfo fileInfo = new FileInfo(uri);
return fileInfo.FullName.GetHashCode();
}
Altough this is just a 32 bits code, you duplicate it or append another HashCode based on some other characteristics of the file.