lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 22 Mar 2007 22:56:29 +0300
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <>
To:	"Nikolaos D. Bougalis" <>
Subject: Re: RFC: Established connections hash function

On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 12:44:09PM -0700, Nikolaos D. Bougalis ( wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 11:21 AM, Evgeniy Polyakov <> wrote:
> >>   Utterly broken? Nonsense. I have tested the actual function I proposed
> >>(sans the __force and __u32 stuff, which weren't necessary in my test
> >>program), against real data, collected from various servers in real-time.
> >>It has consistently achieved lower average chain lengths than the vanilla
> >>function and demonstrated no artifacting, and that's trivial to verify.
> >
> >So what?
>    So what? Are you serious?

We started our discussion a bit wrong - let's start it again, ok? :)
> >People test and work with XOR hash for years and they do not strike any
> >problems. If we talk about specially crafted data, then XOR one is no
> >worse than Jenkins with 3 words (which is even worse for blind attack of
> >constant ports).
>    People _have_ had problems. _I_ have had problems. And when someone with 
> a few thousand drones under his control hoses your servers because he can 
> do math and he leaves you with 20000-item long chains, _you_ will have 
> problems. And sticking your head in the sand and saying "people work with 
> XOR hash for years and they do not strike any problems" wont help you.

You do not want to read what was written - _if_ we use artificial data,
then attacker can use it too, so if it is possible to break the system
with artificial data, then it is possible it will be broken in a real
life. If we use usual data, then we are ok (although Jenkins with 3
words is not ok).
> >>   The only analysis I could find was this
> >>, which uses
> >>jhash_2words, and not jhash_3words, and which naively attempts to take 
> >>the
> >>output of jhash_2words, and to perform the same mixing trick that the
> >>vanilla inet_ehashfn does and uses artificially generated data sets.
> >
> >It is outdated, check recent netdev@ archives. Folding used in that test
> >does not change distribution, and data was presented as it can be
> >selected by attacker, who can create with any distribution.
>    Be careful here. If the folding makes no difference, it says something 
> very important about __jhash_mix, and that something goes against the very 
> thing that you are saying.

Grrr, I think I pointed several times already, that properly distributed
values do not change distribution after folding. And it can be seen in
all tests (and in that you pointed too).

> >>   But please, feel free to point out any other _unfavorable_ analyses of
> >>jhash_2words or jhash_3words that I may have missed.
> >>
> >>
> >>>We can use jhash_2words(laddr, faddr, portpair^inet_ehash_rnd) though.
> >>
> >>   Please explain to me how jhash_2words solves the issue that you claim
> >>jhash_3words has, when they both use the same underlying bit-mixer?
> >
> >$c value is not properly distributed and significanly breaks overall
> >distribution. Attacker, which controls $c (and it does it by controlling
> >ports), can significantly increase selected hash chains.
>    I've tested the Jenkins hash extensively. I see no evidence of this 
> "improper distribution" that you describe. In fact, about the only person 
> that I've seen advocate this in the archives of netdev is you, and a lot of 
> other very smart people disagree with you, so I consider myself to be in 
> good company.

Hmm, I ran tests to select proper hash for netchannel implementation
(actualy the same as sockets) and showed Jenkin's hash problems - it is
enough to have only problem to state that there is a problem, doesn't
> >But it is only $c, $a and $b are properly distributed, so jhash_2words()
> >is safer than jhash_3words().
> >Just create a simple application which does
> >jhash_3words(a, b, rand(), init) and jhash_2words(a, b, rand()) and see
> >results.
>    What exactly am I supposed to see in these results? Because whatever it 
> is, it's not there. Feel free to provide a link to your data and a 

I will try to decipher phrase 'whatever it is, it's not there'...

> histogram that shows what you find of interest though, and I'll be happy to 
> look at it.

This thread for example:

One your test shows thare are no problems, try that one I propose, which
can be even created in userspace - you do not want even to get into
account what I try to say to you.

	Evgeniy Polyakov
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists