Re: [Caml-list] Hashtbl and security

[oliver <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>]

On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 01:57:21AM +0100, oliver wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 06:06:26PM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > On 12/30/2011 05:44 PM, Gerd Stolpmann wrote:
> > 
> > > 1) Avoid hash tables in contexts where security is relevant. The
> > > alternative is Set (actually a balanced binary tree), which does not
> > > show this problem.
> > 
> > Highly recommended.  Nothing beats guaranteed O(log n) operations.
> > 
> > > 2) Use cryptographically secure hash functions.
> > 
> > Hopeless: with a hash size of 30 bits, as in Caml, or even 64 bits,
> > there are no cryptographically secure hash functions.
> > 
> > > 3) Use "randomized" hash tables. The trick here is that there is not a
> > > single hash function h anymore, but a family h(1)...h(n). When the hash
> > > table is created, one of the functions is picked randomly. This makes it
> > > impossible to craft an attack request, because you cannot predict the
> > > function. 
> > 
> > Indeed.  The optional "seed" parameter to Hashtbl.create does exactly
> > this in the new implementation of Hashtbl (the one based on Murmur3).
> [...]
> 
> 
> Where is this?
> 
> I found  Hashtbl.HashedType.hash  with type t -> int.

And there is "val hash_param : int -> int -> 'a -> int"
but I'm not sure if this adresses the issue.

Ciao,
   Oliver