➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author christian.heimes
Recipients Mark.Shannon, christian.heimes, erlendaasland, gvanrossum, lemburg, methane, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2021-10-07.13:29:54
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1633613394.26.0.149303567264.issue29410@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content 
JP got back to me

On 07/10/2021 14.34, Jean-Philippe Aumasson wrote:
> xxHash is much faster indeed, but collisions seem trivial to find, which 
> might allow hash-flood DoS again (see for example 
> https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/issues/180 
> <https://github.com/Cyan4973/xxHash/issues/180>). It's however unclear 
> whether exploitable multicollisions can also be trivially found.
> 
> If collisions don't matter and if the ~10x speed-up makes a difference, 
> then probably a good option, but guess you'll need to keep SipHash (or 
> some other safe hash) when DoS resistance is needed?

This information disqualifies xxHash for our use case.
History
Date User Action Args
2021-10-07 13:29:54christian.heimessetrecipients: + christian.heimes, lemburg, gvanrossum, rhettinger, vstinner, methane, Mark.Shannon, serhiy.storchaka, erlendaasland
2021-10-07 13:29:54christian.heimessetmessageid: <1633613394.26.0.149303567264.issue29410@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2021-10-07 13:29:54christian.heimeslinkissue29410 messages
2021-10-07 13:29:54christian.heimescreate