Is it possible to reverse a SHA-1?
I'm thinking about using a SHA-1 to create a simple lightweight system to authenticate a small embedded system that communicates over an unencrypted connection.
Let's say that I create a sha1 like this with input from a "secret key" and spice it with a timestamp so that the SHA-1 will change all the time.
sha1("My Secret Key"+"a timestamp")
Then I include this SHA-1 in the communication and the server, which can do the same calculation. And hopefully, nobody would be able to figure out the "secret key".
But is this really true?
If you know that this is how I did it, you would know that I did put a timestamp in there and you would see the SHA-1.
Can you then use those two and figure out the "secret key"?
secret_key = bruteforce_sha1(sha1, timestamp)
Note1:
I guess you could brute force in some way, but how much work would that actually be?
Note2:
I don't plan to encrypt any data, I just would like to know who sent it.
No, you cannot reverse SHA-1, that is exactly why it is called a Secure Hash Algorithm.
What you should definitely be doing though, is include the message that is being transmitted into the hash calculation. Otherwise a man-in-the-middle could intercept the message, and use the signature (which only contains the sender's key and the timestamp) to attach it to a fake message (where it would still be valid).
And you should probably be using SHA-256 for new systems now.
sha("My Secret Key"+"a timestamp" + the whole message to be signed)
You also need to additionally transmit the timestamp in the clear, because otherwise you have no way to verify the digest (other than trying a lot of plausible timestamps).
If a brute force attack is feasible depends on the length of your secret key.
The security of your whole system would rely on this shared secret (because both sender and receiver need to know, but no one else). An attacker would try to go after the key (either but brute-force guessing or by trying to get it from your device) rather than trying to break SHA-1.
SHA-1 is a hash function that was designed to make it impractically difficult to reverse the operation. Such hash functions are often called one-way functions or cryptographic hash functions for this reason.
However, SHA-1's collision resistance was theoretically broken in 2005. This allows finding two different input that has the same hash value faster than the generic birthday attack that has 280 cost with 50% probability. In 2017, the collision attack become practicable as known as shattered.
As of 2015, NIST dropped SHA-1 for signatures. You should consider using something stronger like SHA-256 for new applications.
Jon Callas on SHA-1:
It's time to walk, but not run, to the fire exits. You don't see smoke, but the fire alarms have gone off.
The question is actually how to authenticate over an insecure session.
The standard why to do this is to use a message digest, e.g. HMAC.
You send the message plaintext as well as an accompanying hash of that message where your secret has been mixed in.
So instead of your:
sha1("My Secret Key"+"a timestamp")
You have:
msg,hmac("My Secret Key",sha(msg+msg_sequence_id))
The message sequence id is a simple counter to keep track by both parties to the number of messages they have exchanged in this 'session' - this prevents an attacker from simply replaying previous-seen messages.
This the industry standard and secure way of authenticating messages, whether they are encrypted or not.
(this is why you can't brute the hash:)
A hash is a one-way function, meaning that many inputs all produce the same output.
As you know the secret, and you can make a sensible guess as to the range of the timestamp, then you could iterate over all those timestamps, compute the hash and compare it.
Of course two or more timestamps within the range you examine might 'collide' i.e. although the timestamps are different, they generate the same hash.
So there is, fundamentally, no way to reverse the hash with any certainty.
In mathematical terms, only bijective functions have an inverse function. But hash functions are not injective as there are multiple input values that result in the same output value (collision).
So, no, hash functions can not be reversed. But you can look for such collisions.
Edit
As you want to authenticate the communication between your systems, I would suggest to use HMAC. This construct to calculate message authenticate codes can use different hash functions. You can use SHA-1, SHA-256 or whatever hash function you want.
And to authenticate the response to a specific request, I would send a nonce along with the request that needs to be used as salt to authenticate the response.
It is not entirely true that you cannot reverse SHA-1 encrypted string.
You cannot directly reverse one, but it can be done with rainbow tables.
Wikipedia:
A rainbow table is a precomputed table for reversing cryptographic hash functions, usually for cracking password hashes. Tables are usually used in recovering a plaintext password up to a certain length consisting of a limited set of characters.
Essentially, SHA-1 is only as safe as the strength of the password used. If users have long passwords with obscure combinations of characters, it is very unlikely that existing rainbow tables will have a key for the encrypted string.
You can test your encrypted SHA-1 strings here:
http://sha1.gromweb.com/
There are other rainbow tables on the internet that you can use so Google reverse SHA1.
Note that the best attacks against MD5 and SHA-1 have been about finding any two arbitrary messages m1 and m2 where h(m1) = h(m2) or finding m2 such that h(m1) = h(m2) and m1 != m2. Finding m1, given h(m1) is still computationally infeasible.
Also, you are using a MAC (message authentication code), so an attacker can't forget a message without knowing secret with one caveat - the general MAC construction that you used is susceptible to length extension attack - an attacker can in some circumstances forge a message m2|m3, h(secret, m2|m3) given m2, h(secret, m2). This is not an issue with just timestamp but it is an issue when you compute MAC over messages of arbitrary length. You could append the secret to timestamp instead of pre-pending but in general you are better off using HMAC with SHA1 digest (HMAC is just construction and can use MD5 or SHA as digest algorithms).
Finally, you are signing just the timestamp and the not the full request. An active attacker can easily attack the system especially if you have no replay protection (although even with replay protection, this flaw exists). For example, I can capture timestamp, HMAC(timestamp with secret) from one message and then use it in my own message and the server will accept it.
Best to send message, HMAC(message) with sufficiently long secret. The server can be assured of the integrity of the message and authenticity of the client.
You can depending on your threat scenario either add replay protection or note that it is not necessary since a message when replayed in entirety does not cause any problems.
Hashes are dependent on the input, and for the same input will give the same output.
So, in addition to the other answers, please keep the following in mind:
If you start the hash with the password, it is possible to pre-compute rainbow tables, and quickly add plausible timestamp values, which is much harder if you start with the timestamp.
So, rather than use
sha1("My Secret Key"+"a timestamp")
go for
sha1("a timestamp"+"My Secret Key")
I believe the accepted answer is technically right but wrong as it applies to the use case: to create & transmit tamper evident data over public/non-trusted mediums.
Because although it is technically highly-difficult to brute-force or reverse a SHA hash, when you are sending plain text "data & a hash of the data + secret" over the internet, as noted above, it is possible to intelligently get the secret after capturing enough samples of your data. Think about it - your data may be changing, but the secret key remains the same. So every time you send a new data blob out, it's a new sample to run basic cracking algorithms on. With 2 or more samples that contain different data & a hash of the data+secret, you can verify that the secret you determine is correct and not a false positive.
This scenario is similar to how Wifi crackers can crack wifi passwords after they capture enough data packets. After you gather enough data it's trivial to generate the secret key, even though you aren't technically reversing SHA1 or even SHA256. The ONLY way to ensure that your data has not been tampered with, or to verify who you are talking to on the other end, is to encrypt the entire data blob using GPG or the like (public & private keys). Hashing is, by nature, ALWAYS insecure when the data you are hashing is visible.
Practically speaking it really depends on the application and purpose of why you are hashing in the first place. If the level of security required is trivial or say you are inside of a 100% completely trusted network, then perhaps hashing would be a viable option. Hope no one on the network, or any intruder, is interested in your data. Otherwise, as far as I can determine at this time, the only other reliably viable option is key-based encryption. You can either encrypt the entire data blob or just sign it.
Note: This was one of the ways the British were able to crack the Enigma code during WW2, leading to favor the Allies.
Any thoughts on this?
SHA1 was designed to prevent recovery of the original text from the hash. However, SHA1 databases exists, that allow to lookup the common passwords by their SHA hash.
Is it possible to reverse a SHA-1?
SHA-1 was meant to be a collision-resistant hash, whose purpose is to make it hard to find distinct messages that have the same hash. It is also designed to have preimage-resistant, that is it should be hard to find a message having a prescribed hash, and second-preimage-resistant, so that it is hard to find a second message having the same hash as a prescribed message.
SHA-1's collision resistance is broken practically in 2017 by Google's team and NIST already removed the SHA-1 for signature purposes in 2015.
SHA-1 pre-image resistance, on the other hand, still exists. One should be careful about the pre-image resistance, if the input space is short, then finding the pre-image is easy. So, your secret should be at least 128-bit.
SHA-1("My Secret Key"+"a timestamp")
This is the pre-fix secret construction has an attack case known as the length extension attack on the Merkle-Damgard based hash function like SHA-1. Applied to the Flicker. One should not use this with SHA-1 or SHA-2. One can use
HMAC-SHA-256 (HMAC doesn't require the collision resistance of the hash function therefore SHA-1 and MD5 are still fine for HMAC, however, forgot about them) to achieve a better security system. HMAC has a cost of double call of the hash function. That is a weakness for time demanded systems. A note; HMAC is a beast in cryptography.
KMAC is the pre-fix secret construction from SHA-3, since SHA-3 has resistance to length extension attack, this is secure.
Use BLAKE2 with pre-fix construction and this is also secure since it has also resistance to length extension attacks. BLAKE is a really fast hash function, and now it has a parallel version BLAKE3, too (need some time for security analysis). Wireguard uses BLAKE2 as MAC.
Then I include this SHA-1 in the communication and the server, which can do the same calculation. And hopefully, nobody would be able to figure out the "secret key".
But is this really true?
If you know that this is how I did it, you would know that I did put a timestamp in there and you would see the SHA-1. Can you then use those two and figure out the "secret key"?
secret_key = bruteforce_sha1(sha1, timestamp)
You did not define the size of your secret. If your attacker knows the timestamp, then they try to look for it by searching. If we consider the collective power of the Bitcoin miners, as of 2022, they reach around ~293 double SHA-256 in a year. Therefore, you must adjust your security according to your risk. As of 2022, NIST's minimum security is 112-bit. One should consider the above 128-bit for the secret size.
Note1: I guess you could brute force in some way, but how much work would that actually be?
Given the answer above. As a special case, against the possible implementation of Grover's algorithm ( a Quantum algorithm for finding pre-images), one should use hash functions larger than 256 output size.
Note2: I don't plan to encrypt any data, I just would like to know who sent it.
This is not the way. Your construction can only work if the secret is mutually shared like a DHKE. That is the secret only known to party the sender and you. Instead of managing this, a better way is to use digital signatures to solve this issue. Besides, one will get non-repudiation, too.
Any hashing algorithm is reversible, if applied to strings of max length L. The only matter is the value of L. To assess it exactly, you could run the state of art dehashing utility, hashcat. It is optimized to get best performance of your hardware.
That's why you need long passwords, like 12 characters. Here they say for length 8 the password is dehashed (using brute force) in 24 hours (1 GPU involved). For each extra character multiply it by alphabet length (say 50). So for 9 characters you have 50 days, for 10 you have 6 years, and so on. It's definitely inaccurate, but can give us an idea, what the numbers could be.
I am implementing a HMAC-like solution based upon specifications provided to me by another company. The hashing parameters and use of the secret key is not an issue, and neither is the distribution of the key itself, since we are in close contact and close geographical location.
However - what is best practice for the actual secret key value?
Since both companies are working together, it would seem that
c9ac56dd392a3206fc80145406517d02 generated with a Rijndael algorithm and
Daisy Daisy give me your answer doare both pretty much equally secure (in this context) as a secret key used to add to the hash?
Citing Wikipedia page on HMAC:
The cryptographic strength of the HMAC depends upon the cryptographic strength of the underlying hash function, the size of its hash output, and on the size and quality of the key.
This means that completely random key, where every bit is randomly generated, is far better than set of characters.
The optimum size of the key is equal to block size. If the key is too short then it is padded usually with zeroes (which are not random). If the key is too long then its hash function is used. The length of hash output is anyway block size.
Use of visible characters as a key makes the key easier to guess as there are far less combinations of visible characters than if we allow for every possible combination of bits. For example:
There are 95 visible characters in ASCII (out of 256 combinations). If the block size is 16 bytes (HMAC_MD5) then there are 95^16 ~= 4.4*10^31 combinations. But for 16 bytes there are 3.4*10^38 possibilities. Attacker knowing that the key consists only of visible ASCII characters knows that he requires around 10 000 000 times less time than if he had to consider every possible combination of bits.
Summarizing I recommend use of cryptographic pseudo-random number generator to generate secret keys instead of coming up with your own keys.
Edit:
As martinstoeckli suggested if you have to you can use key-derivation-function to generate byte key of specified length from text password. This is much safer than converting plain text to bytes and using these bytes as a key directly. Nevertheless, there is nothing more secure than key consisting of random bytes.
I've never taken any classes on encryption or security and I'm trying to teach myself some basics, so forgive me if this is a silly question (don't worry, I'm not working on anything sensitive)
So, I'm playing around with Crypto++ so that I can make a signature of a file to see if the file has been edited by someone other than me. The test application that comes with the library looks like it has options (rs and rv) that do exactly what I want to do in my own program (verify the integrity of the signature of a file). Of course, before doing that I need to generate a public and private key. When doing so with the test application's g option it asks me to specify the key length in bits. What difference does the key length make?
The key length determines how hard it is for someone to break your cryptography. For digital signatures, that means how hard is it for someone to generate a fake signature.
For RSA a key length of 1024 bits is sufficient for non-sensitive information, but it should only be used for a few years and then replaced with a new key. 2048 bits is stronger and 4096 is stronger still.
For a naive brute-force attacker, adding a single bit to the key length doubles the amount of work they need to do to compromise your key. However, algorithms like RSA do not scale in this way: a 2048-bit RSA key is not 2^1024 times as hard to break as a 1024-bit key (unless the attacker is really stupid).
Generally public key algorithms (e.g. RSA) need much larger keys than symmetric key algorithms (e.g. AES) because they rely on different mathematical properties.
For a good primer on cryptography you should check out Peter Gutmann's godzilla crypto tutorial. It's pretty readable and gives you a good overview of how crypto works in its various forms.
A friend of me ask this, and i was thinking of asking this here too..
"What kind of data are this, how are they encrypted, or decrypted?"
My friend told me he got this from facebook.
d9ca6435295fcd89e85bd56c2fd51ccc
It looks like it could be an md5 hash.
Basically a hash is a one-way function. The idea is that you take some input data and run it through the algorithm to create a value (such as the string above) that has a low probability of collisions (IE, two input values hashing to the same string).
You cannot decrypt a hash because there is not enough information in the resultant string to go back. However, it may be possible for someone to figure out your input values if you use a 'weak' hashing algorithm and do not do proper techniques such as salting a hash, etc.
I don't know how FaceBook uses hashes, but a common use for a hash might be to uniquely identify a page. For example, if you had a private image on a page, you might ask to generate a link to the image that you can email to friends. That link might use a hash as part of the URL since the value can be computed quickly, is reasonably unique, and has a low probability of a third party figuring it out.
This is actually a large topic that I am by no means doing justice to. I suggest googling around for hash, md5, etc to learn more, if you are so inclinded.
It is a sequence of 128 bits, encoded as a lower-case hex string.
If you are talking about a Facebook API key, there is no deeper meaning to decode from the bits. The keys are created at random by Facebook and assigned to a particular application to identify it. Each application gets a different set of random bits for its API key.
This appears the be the...
hexadecimal representation for...
- ... a 16 bytes encryption block or..
- ... some 128 bits hash code or even
- ... just for some plain random / identifying number.
(Hexadecimal? : note how there are only 0 thru 9 digits and a thru f letters.)
While the MD5 Hash guess suggested by others is quite plausible, it could be just about anything...
If it is a hash or a identifying / randomly assigned number, its meaning is external to the code itself.
For example it could be a key to be used to locate records in a database, or a value to be compared with the result of the hash function applied to the user supplied password etc.
If it is an encrypted value, its meaning (decrypted value) is directly found within the code, but it could be just about anything. Also, assuming it is produced with modern encryption algorithm, it could take a phenomenal amount of effort to crack the code (if at all possible).
iTunesConnect states that developers need to get a CCATS Classification if using encryption in the app. My app uses a simple XOR obfuscation cipher when transferring data over HTTP. Does this still fall under that requirement? If not, then what type of encryption need to be CCATS classified?
I am not qualified to offer legal advice.
Your probably need to consult with a lawyer to get a answer, as this is a legal matter.
I read the regulations here. My opinion is that if it is a publically available symetric algorithm, which XOR is, as long as the key length is 64-bit or less, then you don't need a license. So, if your key length is 64-bits or less, you do not fall under that requirement.
Again this is just my opinion, but from reading Title 15.B.VII.C.742.15, encryption that needs to be CCATS classified is:
symetric encryption that uses key lengths longer than 64-bits
proprietary (non-public) encryption with key lengths longer than 56-bits
asymetric key exchange algorithms with key lengths greater than 512-bits
elliptic curve algotihms with key lengths greater than 112-bits