Reasons why SHA512 is superior to MD5

Question

I was wondering if I could reasons or links to resources explaining why SHA512 is a superior hashing algorithm to MD5.

Solution 1

It depends on your use case. You can't broadly claim "superiority". (I mean, yes you can, in some cases, but to be strict about it, you can't really).

But there are areas where MD5 has been broken:

1. For starters: MD5 is old, and common. There are tons of rainbow tables against it, and they're easy to find. So if you're hashing passwords (without a salt - shame on you!) - using md5 - you might as well not be hashing them, they're so easy to find. Even if you're hashing with simple salts really.
2. Second off, MD5 is no longer secure as a cryptographic hash function (indeed it is not even considered a cryptographic hash function anymore as the Forked One points out). You can generate different messages that hash to the same value. So if you've got a SSL Certificate with a MD5 hash on it, I can generate a duplicate Certificate that says what I want, that produces the same hash. This is generally what people mean when they say MD5 is 'broken' - things like this.
3. Thirdly, similar to messages, you can also generate different files that hash to the same value so using MD5 as a file checksum is 'broken'.

Now, SHA-512 is a SHA-2 Family hash algorithm. SHA-1 is kind of considered 'eh' these days, I'll ignore it. SHA-2 however, has relatively few attacks against it. The major one wikipedia talks about is a reduced-round preimage attack which means if you use SHA-512 in a horribly wrong way, I can break it. Obivously you're not likely to be using it that way, but attacks only get better, and it's a good springboard into more research to break SHA-512 in the same way MD5 is broken.

However, out of all the Hash functions available, the SHA-2 family is currently amoung the strongest, and the best choice considering commonness, analysis, and security. (But not necessarily speed. If you're in embedded systems, you need to perform a whole other analysis.)

Solution 2

MD5 has been cryptographically broken for quite some time now. This basically means that some of the properties usually guaranteed by hash algorithms, do not hold anymore. For example it is possible to find hash collisions in much less time than potentially necessary for the output length.

SHA-512 (one of the SHA-2 family of hash functions) is, for now, secure enough but possibly not much longer for the foreseeable future. That's why the NIST started a contest for SHA-3.

Generally, you want hash algorithms to be one-way functions. They map some input to some output. Usually the output is of a fixed length, thereby providing a "digest" of the original input. Common properties are for example that small changes in input yield large changes in the output (which helps detecting tampering) and that the function is not easily reversible. For the latter property the length of the output greatly helps because it provides a theoretical upper bound for the complexity of a collision attack. However, flaws in design or implementation often result in reduced complexity for attacks. Once those are known it's time to evaluate whether still using a hash function. If the attack complexity drops far enough practical attacks easily get in the range of people without specialized computing equipment.

Note: I've been talking only about one kind of attack here. The reality if much more nuanced but also much harder to grasp. Since hash functions are very commonly used for verifying file/message integrity the collision thing is probably the easiest one to understand and follow.

Solution 3

There are a couple of points not being addressed here, and I feel it is from a lack of understanding about what a hash is, how it works, and how long it takes to successfully attack them, using rainbow or any other method currently known to man...

Mathematically speaking, MD5 is not "broken" if you salt the hash and throttle attempts (even by 1 second), your security would be just as "broken" as it would by an attacker slowly pelting away at your 1ft solid steel wall with a wooden spoon:

It will take thousands of years, and by then everyone involved will be dead; there are more important things to worry about.

If you lock their account by the 20th attempt... problem solved. 20 hits on your wall = 0.0000000001% chance they got through. There is literally a better statistical chance you are in fact Jesus.

It's also important to note that absolutely any hash function is going to be vulnerable to collisions by virtue of what a hash is: "a (small) unique id of something else".

When you increase the bit space you decrease collision rates, but you also increase the size of the id and the time it takes to compute it.

Let's do a tiny thought experiment...

SHA-2, if it existed, would have 4 total possible unique IDs for something else... 00, 01, 10 & 11. It will produce collisions, obviously. Do you see the issue here? A hash is just a generated ID of what you're trying to identify.

MD5 is actually really, really good at randomly choosing a number based on an input. SHA is actually not that much better at it; SHA just has massive more space for IDs.

The method used is about 0.1% of the reason the collisions are less likely. The real reason is the larger bit space.

This is literally the only reason SHA-256 and SHA-512 are less vulnerable to collisions; because they use a larger space for a unique id.

The actual methods SHA-256 and SHA-512 use to generate the hash are in fact better, but not by much; the same rainbow attacks would work on them if they had fewer bits in their IDs, and files and even passwords can have identical IDs using SHA-256 and SHA-512, it's just a lot less likely because it uses more bits.

The REAL ISSUE is how you implement your security

If you allow automated attacks to hit your authentication endpoint 1,000 times per second, you're going to get broken into. If you throttle to 1 attempt per 3 seconds and lock the account for 24 hours after the 10th attempt, you're not.

If you store the passwords without salt (a salt is just an added secret to the generator, making it harder to identify bad passwords like "31337" or "password") and have a lot of users, you're going to get hacked. If you salt them, even if you use MD5, you're not.

Considering MD5 uses 128 bits (32 bytes in HEX, 16 bytes in binary), and SHA 512 is only 4x the space but virtually eliminates the collision ratio by giving you 2^384 more possible IDs... Go with SHA-512, every time.

But if you're worried about what is really going to happen if you use MD5, and you don't understand the real, actual differences, you're still probably going to get hacked, make sense?

Solution 4

reading this

However, it has been shown that MD5 is not collision resistant

more information about collision here

Solution 5

MD5 has a chance of collision (http://www.mscs.dal.ca/~selinger/md5collision/) and there are numerous MD5 rainbow tables for reverse password look-up on the web and available for download.

View more solutions

Comments

[yfeldblum]

Note that SHA-512 is one of the algorithms within the SHA-2 family. (Explaining reference to SHA-3.)

[BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft]

"because you can generate different messages that hash to the same value." - that is the reason it is no longer considered a crytographic hash, as it no longer meets all the requirements (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function)

[Joshua Pinter]

I see Dumb and Dumber, I upvote. But, as it turns out, it was an incredibly good answer too.