I was interested how "long" each hash is, so I did:
<?php
$data = "hello";
foreach (hash_algos() as $v) {
$r = hash($v, $data, false);
printf("%-12s %3d %s\n", $v, strlen($r), $r);
}
?>
which produce (long hashes are cropped)
md2 32 a9046c73e00331af68917d3804f70655
md4 32 866437cb7a794bce2b727acc0362ee27
md5 32 5d41402abc4b2a76b9719d911017c592
sha1 40 aaf4c61ddcc5e8a2dabede0f3b482cd9aea9434d
sha256 64 2cf24dba5fb0a30e26e83b2ac5b9e29e1b161e5c1fa7425e730
sha384 96 59e1748777448c69de6b800d7a33bbfb9ff1b463e44354c3553
sha512 128 9b71d224bd62f3785d96d46ad3ea3d73319bfbc2890caadae2d
ripemd128 32 789d569f08ed7055e94b4289a4195012
ripemd160 40 108f07b8382412612c048d07d13f814118445acd
ripemd256 64 cc1d2594aece0a064b7aed75a57283d9490fd5705ed3d66bf9a
ripemd320 80 eb0cf45114c56a8421fbcb33430fa22e0cd607560a88bbe14ce
whirlpool 128 0a25f55d7308eca6b9567a7ed3bd1b46327f0f1ffdc804dd8bb
tiger128,3 32 a78862336f7ffd2c8a3874f89b1b74f2
tiger160,3 40 a78862336f7ffd2c8a3874f89b1b74f2f27bdbca
tiger192,3 48 a78862336f7ffd2c8a3874f89b1b74f2f27bdbca39660254
tiger128,4 32 1c2a939f230ee5e828f5d0eae5947135
tiger160,4 40 1c2a939f230ee5e828f5d0eae5947135741cd0ae
tiger192,4 48 1c2a939f230ee5e828f5d0eae5947135741cd0aefeeb2adc
snefru 64 7c5f22b1a92d9470efea37ec6ed00b2357a4ce3c41aa6e28e3b
gost 64 a7eb5d08ddf2363f1ea0317a803fcef81d33863c8b2f9f6d7d1
adler32 8 062c0215
crc32 8 3d653119
crc32b 8 3610a686
haval128,3 32 85c3e4fac0ba4d85519978fdc3d1d9be
haval160,3 40 0e53b29ad41cea507a343cdd8b62106864f6b3fe
haval192,3 48 bfaf81218bbb8ee51b600f5088c4b8601558ff56e2de1c4f
haval224,3 56 92d0e3354be5d525616f217660e0f860b5d472a9cb99d6766be
haval256,3 64 26718e4fb05595cb8703a672a8ae91eea071cac5e7426173d4c
haval128,4 32 fe10754e0b31d69d4ece9c7a46e044e5
haval160,4 40 b9afd44b015f8afce44e4e02d8b908ed857afbd1
haval192,4 48 ae73833a09e84691d0214f360ee5027396f12599e3618118
haval224,4 56 e1ad67dc7a5901496b15dab92c2715de4b120af2baf661ecd92
haval256,4 64 2d39577df3a6a63168826b2a10f07a65a676f5776a0772e0a87
haval128,5 32 d20e920d5be9d9d34855accb501d1987
haval160,5 40 dac5e2024bfea142e53d1422b90c9ee2c8187cc6
haval192,5 48 bbb99b1e989ec3174019b20792fd92dd67175c2ff6ce5965
haval224,5 56 aa6551d75e33a9c5cd4141e9a068b1fc7b6d847f85c3ab16295
haval256,5 64 348298791817d5088a6de6c1b6364756d404a50bd64e645035f
hash
(PHP 5 >= 5.1.2, PHP 7, PHP 8, PECL hash >= 1.1)
hash — Génère une valeur de hachage (empreinte numérique)
Liste de paramètres
-
algo -
Nom de l'algorithme de hachage sélectionné (c'est-à-dire "md5", "sha256", "haval160,4", etc.). Pour une lise des algorithmes disponible voir hash_algos().
-
data -
Message à hacher.
-
binary -
Lorsqu'il vaut
true, la sortie sera des données brutes binaires. Lorsqu'il vautfalse, la sortie sera des chiffres hexadécimaux en minuscule. -
options -
Un tableau d'options pour les algorithmes dives de hachage. Actuellement, seul le paramètre "seed" est supporté pour les variantes MurmurHash.
Valeurs de retour
Retourne une chaîne de caractères contenant l'empreinte numérique calculée
en chiffre hexadécimal minuscule à moins que
binary soit fixé à true. Dans ce cas, la
représentation brute binaire de l'empreinte numérique est retournée.
Historique
| Version | Description |
|---|---|
| 8.1.0 | Le paramètre options a été ajouté. |
| 8.0.0 |
hash() lance désormais une exception
ValueError si l'algo
est inconnu ; auparavant, false était retourné à la place.
|
Exemples
Exemple #1 Exemple avec hash()
<?php
echo hash('sha256', 'The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.');
?>L'exemple ci-dessus va afficher :
68b1282b91de2c054c36629cb8dd447f12f096d3e3c587978dc2248444633483
Voir aussi
- hash_file() - Génère une valeur de hachage en utilisant le contenu d'un fichier donné
- hash_hmac() - Génère une valeur de clé de hachage en utilisant la méthode HMAC
- hash_init() - Initialise un contexte de hachage incrémental
- md5() - Calcule le md5 d'une chaîne
- sha1() - Calcule le sha1 d'une chaîne de caractères
add a note
User Contributed Notes 19 notes
nmmm at nmmm dot nu ¶
13 years ago
jrz [dot] agarcia [at] gmail [dot] com ¶
6 years ago
I was curious about hashes behavior (time and length), so i ran this code (yeah, I'm cheating because i took two examples from this page)
<?php
echo "Building data...";
$data = "";
for($i = 0; $i < 1500; $i++)
$data .= sha1("H:k - $i - k:H");
echo "OK! (".strlen($data)." bytes)".PHP_EOL;
$res = [];
echo "Testing hashes.....".PHP_EOL;
foreach (hash_algos() as $algo) {
$time = microtime(1);
$hash = hash($algo, $data);
$time = (microtime(1) - $time) * 1000;
$length = strlen($hash);
$res["$time"][] = [
"algo" => "HEX-$algo",
"length" => "$length",
"time" => sprintf("%.8f", $time)
];
$time = microtime(1);
hash($algo, $data, 1);
$time = (microtime(1) - $time) * 1000;
$res["$time"][] = [
"algo" => "RAW-$algo",
"length" => "$length",
"time" => sprintf("%.8f", $time)
];
}
ksort($res);
$i = 0;
echo "Results:".PHP_EOL;
echo "Posit. Time in ms Type-Hash algo Hash length".PHP_EOL;
foreach($res as $sres){
foreach($sres as $result){
echo sprintf("%5d. %12s ms %-20s %-2d bytes", $i++, $result['time'], $result['algo'], $result['length']).PHP_EOL;
}
}
?>
I found interesting that today (may 31, 2018), I found 103 algos, 65 more than 9 years ago (based on this comment: https://secure.php.net/manual/en/function.hash.php#89574 )
Also, here is my results: https://ideone.com/embed/0iwuGn
I'm not posting here due to message length limitations.
Kai Petzke ¶
15 years ago
The well known hash functions MD5 and SHA1 should be avoided in new applications. Collission attacks against MD5 are well documented in the cryptographics literature and have already been demonstrated in practice. Therefore, MD5 is no longer secure for certain applications.
Collission attacks against SHA1 have also been published, though they still require computing power, which is somewhat out of scope. As computing power increases with time and the attacks are likely to get better, too, attacks against systems relying on SHA1 for security are likely to become feasible within the next few years.
There is no lack of potential alternative hash algorithms, as the many choices for the "algo" argument of PHPs hash() function already suggests. Unfortunately, there is lack of analysis, as to how secure these alternative algorithms are. It is rather safe to assume, though, that the SHA2 family with its most prominent members SHA-256 und SHA-512, is better than SHA1.
When storing password hashes, it is a good idea to prefix a salt to the password before hashing, to avoid the same passwords to hash to the same values and to avoid the use of rainbow tables for password recovery. Unlike suggested in other articles, there is no security advantage in putting the salt in the middle, or even at both the beginning and the end, of the combined salt-password-string.
Rather, there are two other factors, that determine the strength of the salt: Its length and its variability. For example, using the same salt for all passwords is easy to implement, but gives only very little additional security. In particular, if users type the same passwords, they will still hash to the same value!
Therefore, the salt should be random string with at least as many variable bits, as there are bits in the hash result. In the user database, store username, the randomly generated salt for that user, and the result of hashing the salt-password-string. Access authentication is then done by looking up the entry for the user, calculating the hash of the salt found in the database and the password provided by the user, and comparing the result with the one stored in the database.
luka8088 at gmail dot com ¶
15 years ago
Performance test results on my laptop:
Results are here shorten to fit php web notes ...
This was tested with 1024000 bytes (1000 KB) of random data, md4 always gets the first place, and md2 always get the last place :)
Results: (in microseconds)
1. md4 5307.912
2. md5 6890.058
3. crc32b 7298.946
4. crc32 7561.922
5. sha1 8886.098
6. tiger128,3 11054.992
7. haval192,3 11132.955
8. haval224,3 11160.135
9. tiger160,3 11162.996
10. haval160,3 11242.151
11. haval256,3 11327.981
12. tiger192,3 11630.058
13. haval128,3 11880.874
14. tiger192,4 14776.945
15. tiger128,4 14871.12
16. tiger160,4 14946.937
17. haval160,4 15661.954
18. haval192,4 15717.029
19. haval256,4 15759.944
20. adler32 15796.184
21. haval128,4 15887.022
22. haval224,4 16047.954
23. ripemd256 16245.126
24. haval160,5 17818.927
25. haval128,5 17887.115
26. haval224,5 18085.002
27. haval192,5 18135.07
28. haval256,5 18678.903
29. sha256 19020.08
30. ripemd128 20671.844
31. ripemd160 21853.923
32. ripemd320 22425.889
33. sha384 45102.119
34. sha512 45655.965
35. gost 57237.148
36. whirlpool 64682.96
37. snefru 80352.783
38. md2 705397.844
Code for generating this:
(compatible both with browser and cli mode)
<pre>
<?php
echo 'Building random data ...' . PHP_EOL;
@ob_flush();flush();
$data = '';
for ($i = 0; $i < 64000; $i++)
$data .= hash('md5', rand(), true);
echo strlen($data) . ' bytes of random data built !' . PHP_EOL . PHP_EOL . 'Testing hash algorithms ...' . PHP_EOL;
@ob_flush();flush();
$results = array();
foreach (hash_algos() as $v) {
echo $v . PHP_EOL;
@ob_flush();flush();
$time = microtime(true);
hash($v, $data, false);
$time = microtime(true) - $time;
$results[$time * 1000000000][] = "$v (hex)";
$time = microtime(true);
hash($v, $data, true);
$time = microtime(true) - $time;
$results[$time * 1000000000][] = "$v (raw)";
}
ksort($results);
echo PHP_EOL . PHP_EOL . 'Results: ' . PHP_EOL;
$i = 1;
foreach ($results as $k => $v)
foreach ($v as $k1 => $v1)
echo ' ' . str_pad($i++ . '.', 4, ' ', STR_PAD_LEFT) . ' ' . str_pad($v1, 30, ' ') . ($k / 1000) . ' microseconds' . PHP_EOL;
?>
</pre>
Hayley Watson ¶
7 years ago
Of the hash algorithms currently available, SHA3 was chosen by NIST from fifty-one submitted candidates and subsequently mandated by the U.S. Department of Commerce for Federal Government use.
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/FIPS/NIST.FIPS.202.pdf
So if you're wanting to select a hash algorithm, you can consider SHA3 to be "good enough for government work".
Leigh ¶
16 years ago
Just a quick note about these benchmarks and how you should apply them.
If you are hashing passwords etc for security, speed is not your friend. You should use the slowest method.
Slow to hash means slow to crack and will hopefully make generating things like rainbow tables more trouble than it's worth.
synnus at gmail dot com ¶
4 years ago
<?php
/* PHP 7.4
n° hash results
1. adler32 (hex) 555.992 ms
2. adler32 (raw) 556.945 ms
3. fnv132 (raw) 1107.931 ms
4. fnv1a64 (raw) 1107.931 ms
5. fnv164 (raw) 1108.169 ms
6. fnv1a32 (raw) 1108.884 ms
7. fnv164 (hex) 1108.884 ms
8. fnv1a64 (hex) 1109.123 ms
9. fnv132 (hex) 1116.991 ms
10. fnv1a32 (hex) 1147.985 ms
11. tiger192,3 (raw) 1523.017 ms
12. tiger192,3 (hex) 1532.077 ms
13. tiger128,3 (hex) 1538.038 ms
14. tiger128,3 (raw) 1546.144 ms
15. md4 (raw) 1554.965 ms
16. md4 (hex) 1565.933 ms
17. tiger160,3 (raw) 1574.039 ms
18. tiger160,3 (hex) 1588.106 ms
19. joaat (hex) 1661.777 ms
20. joaat (raw) 1662.969 ms
21. md5 (raw) 1822.948 ms
22. md5 (hex) 1842.975 ms
23. tiger160,4 (hex) 1996.994 ms
24. tiger160,4 (raw) 2007.961 ms
25. tiger128,4 (raw) 2035.14 ms
26. tiger192,4 (raw) 2043.962 ms
27. tiger128,4 (hex) 2065.896 ms
28. tiger192,4 (hex) 2070.903 ms
29. sha1 (hex) 2254.009 ms
30. sha1 (raw) 2326.011 ms
31. sha3-224 (hex) 2768.039 ms
32. sha3-224 (raw) 2783.06 ms
33. sha512 (hex) 2936.124 ms
34. sha512 (raw) 2943.992 ms
35. sha3-256 (hex) 2945.899 ms
36. sha3-256 (raw) 2970.933 ms
37. sha512/224 (raw) 2990.007 ms
38. sha384 (raw) 3006.935 ms
39. sha512/224 (hex) 3010.988 ms
40. sha512/256 (raw) 3024.101 ms
41. sha384 (hex) 3036.975 ms
42. ripemd256 (raw) 3068.923 ms
43. ripemd256 (hex) 3072.023 ms
44. ripemd128 (raw) 3077.03 ms
45. ripemd128 (hex) 3123.998 ms
46. sha512/256 (hex) 3184.08 ms
47. haval256,3 (hex) 3671.884 ms
48. haval224,3 (hex) 3776.073 ms
49. sha3-384 (hex) 3777.98 ms
50. haval128,3 (raw) 3823.041 ms
51. haval128,3 (hex) 3829.002 ms
52. sha3-384 (raw) 3835.916 ms
53. haval256,3 (raw) 3852.128 ms
54. haval224,3 (raw) 3855.943 ms
55. haval160,3 (raw) 3859.996 ms
56. haval160,3 (hex) 3862.857 ms
57. haval192,3 (raw) 3892.898 ms
58. haval192,3 (hex) 3922.939 ms
59. crc32c (hex) 4080.057 ms
60. ripemd160 (hex) 4091.024 ms
61. ripemd160 (raw) 4094.123 ms
62. ripemd320 (raw) 4114.866 ms
63. crc32b (hex) 4116.058 ms
64. crc32 (raw) 4118.919 ms
65. ripemd320 (hex) 4175.186 ms
66. crc32c (raw) 4180.908 ms
67. crc32 (hex) 4194.974 ms
68. crc32b (raw) 4208.803 ms
69. sha224 (hex) 4735.946 ms
70. sha256 (raw) 4753.112 ms
71. sha256 (hex) 4761.934 ms
72. sha224 (raw) 4762.887 ms
73. haval192,4 (raw) 5304.098 ms
74. haval160,4 (raw) 5308.151 ms
75. haval128,4 (raw) 5323.886 ms
76. haval192,4 (hex) 5346.059 ms
77. haval128,4 (hex) 5351.066 ms
78. haval256,4 (hex) 5367.04 ms
79. haval256,4 (raw) 5378.007 ms
80. haval224,4 (raw) 5398.988 ms
81. haval224,4 (hex) 5413.055 ms
82. sha3-512 (raw) 5460.023 ms
83. sha3-512 (hex) 5527.973 ms
84. haval160,4 (hex) 5529.88 ms
85. haval192,5 (hex) 6403.923 ms
86. haval160,5 (raw) 6499.052 ms
87. haval128,5 (raw) 6513.833 ms
88. haval160,5 (hex) 6540.06 ms
89. haval128,5 (hex) 6541.013 ms
90. haval192,5 (raw) 6566.047 ms
91. haval224,5 (raw) 6567.001 ms
92. haval256,5 (hex) 6577.014 ms
93. haval224,5 (hex) 6598.949 ms
94. haval256,5 (raw) 6598.949 ms
95. whirlpool (raw) 9627.103 ms
96. whirlpool (hex) 9634.017 ms
97. gost (raw) 18457.889 ms
98. gost-crypto (raw) 18479.824 ms
99. gost (hex) 18527.03 ms
100. gost-crypto (hex) 18530.13 ms
101. snefru256 (hex) 36260.843 ms
102. snefru256 (raw) 36325.931 ms
103. snefru (hex) 36480.903 ms
104. snefru (raw) 36496.877 ms
105. md2 (raw) 184617.996 ms
106. md2 (hex) 185398.101 ms
*/
?>
buar42 at gmail dot com ¶
11 years ago
I made a PHP script that will let you sort all the available hashes on your system by generation time or by the length of the hash. It shows a general correlation on my system (longer hashes take longer to calculate) but some are faster than others, for example, sha512 makes the (joint) longest hash, but is actually only ninth slowest (from 43 hashes available on my machine)
As I understand it, the strength of a hash is dependant on the number of collisions that it has (where two input values produce the same hash) so with an infinite number of input values but a finite number of hashes, there are a (theoretically) infinite number of collisions. But, if you have a longer hash, then you're dividing infinity by a larger number, so you'll have fewer collisions.
In reality the number of collisions will be limited by the minimum and maximum password lengths that you choose to allow, so that if you enforce a policy where passwords must be exactly a certain length (20 characters for example) you'll have a large number of unique passwords, but a smaller number of potential inputs than you have hashes coming out, so that should prevent collisions entirely. In theory.
Tl;dr: I think that longer hashes are better.
Anyway, here's the code:
<?php
$data = "hello";
foreach (hash_algos() as $v)
{
$time=microtime(1);
for ($i = 0; $i < 10000; $i++)
{
$r[$v] = strlen(hash($v, $data.$i, false));
}
$t[$v] = microtime(1)-$time;
}
switch ($_GET['sort'])
{
default:
ksort ($r);
$array = 'r';
break;
case 'length':
asort ($r);
$array = 'r';
break;
case 'time':
asort ($t);
$array = 't';
break;
}
echo '<pre> <a href="?sort=alph">Name</a> | <a href="?sort=length">Hash Length</a> | <a href="?sort=time">Time taken for 10000 hashes.</a>'."\n";
foreach ($$array as $key => $value)
{
echo $key;
for ($i = strlen ($key); $i <= 19; $i++)
{
echo ' ';
}
echo '| '.$r[$key];
for ($i = strlen ($r[$key]); $i <= 11; $i++)
{
echo ' ';
}
echo '| '.$t[$key]."\n";
}
echo '</pre>';
?>
sneskid at hotmail dot com ¶
12 years ago
On two different servers I found that crc32() relates to hash('crc32b',)
This may be good to know if you are writing a crc32_file function based on hash_file.
(The example does not compensate for negative crc32 results)
<?php
$val = 'hello';
var_dump(crc32($val) == ( '0x' . hash('crc32b', $val) ) ); // bool(true)
var_dump(crc32($val) == ( '0x' . hash('crc32', $val) ) ); // bool(false)
?>
Also if you are looking for a way to reduce collisions and still keep the hash result small (smaller than say md5) you could get a nice database friendly 64 bit value by using hash/crc32 and hash/crc32b, which is slower than a single md5 but the result may be more suitable for certain tasks.
<?php
$val = 'hello';
$crc64 = ( '0x' . hash('crc32', $val) . hash('crc32b', $val) ) );
var_dump($crc64); // string(18) "0x3d6531193610a686"
var_dump($crc64 + 0); // int(4423996193312384646)
?>
(examples tested on php 5.2.17)
note: ('0x' . $hex . + 0) is faster than base_convert($hex,16,10)
robert+nospam at robert-gonzalez dot com ¶
14 years ago
I've recently had the need to look at various hash algorithms and their values of the same string. To make my life a little easier I wrote this little script. It takes a string and runs it through all of the available hash algorithms on your server, outputting them in a clean little HTML table.
-----
<?php
/* Get the posted value of the form if there is one */
$p = empty($_POST['p']) ? null : $_POST['p'];
?>
<html>
<head><title>Hash testing</title></head>
<style type="text/css">
table {border-collapse: collapse;}
table, td, th {border: solid 1px #ccc;}
th {background: #e1e1e1;border-color: #999;}
td, th {padding: 0.25em;}
td.algo {font-weight: bold;}
tr.on td {background: #f0f0f0;}
</style>
<body>
<h1>String hashing</h1>
<form method="post" action="<?php echo basename(__FILE__) ?>">
<p><label for="p">Enter a string to hash:</label><br /><input id="p" type="text" name="p" value="<?php echo $p ?>" /></p>
<p><input type="submit" name="submit" value="Hash It" /></p>
</form>
<?php /* If there is a posted value use it */ ?>
<?php if ($p): ?>
<hr />
<h2>Table of hash values for <em><?php echo $p ?></em> based on algorithm</h2>
<table>
<tr>
<th>Algorithm</th>
<th>Hashed value of <em><?php echo $p ?></em></th>
</tr>
<?php /* Loop through each hash algorithm, colorizing every other row */ ?>
<?php $on = false; foreach (hash_algos() as $algo): ?>
<tr<?php if ($on): ?> class="on"<?php endif; ?>>
<td class="algo"><?php echo $algo ?></td>
<td class="hash"><?php echo hash($algo, $p) ?></td>
</tr>
<?php $on = !$on; endforeach; ?>
</table>
<?php endif; ?>
</body>
</html>
Marcus ¶
16 years ago
A upgrade of (dani88elx AT gmail DOT com)'s performance test [from 26-Jun-2007], this time grading them by speed (fastest first) and comparing times between hex and raw data.
<?php
function testAlgos() {
$algos = hash_algos();
$word="This will be crypted by all different algoritms";
$results = array();
foreach($algos as $algo)
{
$time=microtime(1);
$data = hash($algo, $word, false);
$results["".(microtime(1)-$time)][] = "$algo (hex)";
}
foreach($algos as $algo)
{
$time=microtime(1);
$data = hash($algo, $word, true);
$results["".(microtime(1)-$time)][] = "$algo (raw)";
}
ksort($results);
foreach($results as $time => &$algos) {
echo $time."\n";
sort($algos);
foreach($algos as $algo)
echo "\t".$algo."\n";
}
}
testAlgos();
?>
Ricardo Striquer (ricardophp yohoocombr) ¶
6 years ago
I haven't done any test or actual study (I'm using crc32 and storing it in mysql signed int types), but if your algorithm of choice is bigger them the supported integer of your database I suppose it is possible that the raw_format option is the best option to store directly in the database without type casting demands for it results in a binary string value.
To check if your algorithm of choice have the supported integer size in your database just strlen the raw_format output and see how many bytes it have (for example: crc32 have 4 bytes output, sha256 have 32 e md5 possue 16).
<?php
var_dump(strlen(hash('md5', 'string to check', true))); // int(16)
?>
PS: You can always use floating points to store a very big number but for "common humans" binary types by and large are easier to check, understand and maintain, so i recommend to use binary, but if you are about speed them floating point could be your friend.
PS: remembering ... without the raw_format the returned value are hexadecimal values without the 'Hx' complement, so to transform the result into a decimal just hexdec as shown ...
<?php
var_dump(hexdec(hash('crc32b', 'string to check'))); // int(1206832624)
?>
PS: Just registering ... I have noticed here some tests where 'crc32' is slower than md5, AFAIK by definition a CRC32 algorithm (there are several algorithms to calculate CRC32) is faster than MD5 and Adler-32 is faster than CRC32 (CRC32 is more consistent than Adler-32, less consistent than MD5, but if you want to safely validate the recommended would be SHA256 or better yet SHA512 because they are less likely to collide, so less vulnerable to collision attacks)
rojaro at gmail dot com ¶
14 years ago
If the given algo parameter contains an algorithm that is not supported, the hash function will return bool(false) and issue a warning.
inspiration3 at gmail dot com ¶
16 years ago
Another comprehensive benchmark script that orders results from best to worst and includes the crc32(), md5() and sha1() standalone functions:
<?php
define('HASH_TIMES', 1000);
define('HASH_DATA', 'The quick brown fox jumped over!'); // 32 bytes
header('Content-Type: text/plain');
echo 'Testing ' . strlen(HASH_DATA) . ' bytes of data over ' . HASH_TIMES . " iterations:\n";
foreach (hash_algos() as $algo) {
$time = microtime(1);
for ($i = 0; $i < HASH_TIMES; $i++) hash($algo, HASH_DATA);
$results[$algo] = microtime(1) - $time;
}
$time = microtime(1); for ($i = 0; $i < HASH_TIMES; $i++) crc32(HASH_DATA); $results['crc32()'] = microtime(1) - $time;
$time = microtime(1); for ($i = 0; $i < HASH_TIMES; $i++) md5(HASH_DATA); $results['md5()'] = microtime(1) - $time;
$time = microtime(1); for ($i = 0; $i < HASH_TIMES; $i++) sha1(HASH_DATA); $results['sha1()'] = microtime(1) - $time;
asort($results, SORT_NUMERIC);
foreach ($results as $algo => $time) echo "\n$time\t$algo";
?>
mikael at webhost3 dot eu ¶
17 years ago
<?php
$time=microtime(1);
for ($i=0;$i<100000;$i++)
hash('md5', 'string');
echo microtime(1)-$time,': hash/md5<br>';
$time=microtime(1);
for ($i=0;$i<100000;$i++)
md5('string');
echo microtime(1)-$time,': md5<br>';
$time=microtime(1);
for ($i=0;$i<100000;$i++)
hash('sha1', 'string');
echo microtime(1)-$time,': hash/sha1<br>';
$time=microtime(1);
for ($i=0;$i<100000;$i++)
sha1('string');
echo microtime(1)-$time,': sha1<br>';
?>------------------------<br><?php
$time=microtime(1);
for ($i=0;$i<100000;$i++)
hash('md5', $i);
echo microtime(1)-$time,': hash/md5<br>';
$time=microtime(1);
for ($i=0;$i<100000;$i++)
md5($i);
echo microtime(1)-$time,': md5<br>';
$time=microtime(1);
for ($i=0;$i<100000;$i++)
hash('sha1', $i);
echo microtime(1)-$time,': hash/sha1<br>';
$time=microtime(1);
for ($i=0;$i<100000;$i++)
sha1($i);
echo microtime(1)-$time,': sha1<br>';
?>
Gives:
0.33311605453491: hash/md5
1.0671429634094: md5
0.383131980896: hash/sha1
1.3252220153809: sha1
------------------------
0.37684988975525: hash/md5
1.1258299350739: md5
0.43960785865784: hash/sha1
1.3876020908356: sha1
Hayley Watson ¶
7 years ago
These are hash functions. Some have been designed to act as signatures for documents, while others are simply act as checks that transmitted data hasn't been damaged or otherwise modified during transmission and don't provide any cryptographic features.
Learn their differences, and use what's appropriate, because using the wrong hash function can be worse than not using one at all.
me at akshayjoshi dot com ¶
11 years ago
Using luka8088 at gmail dot com's code on my laptop (PHP 5.4.4 on OS X), showing fastest 50 algorithms only:
Results:
1. adler32 (raw) 3340.959 microseconds
2. adler32 (hex) 3345.012 microseconds
3. fnv132 (raw) 5178.928 microseconds
4. fnv164 (hex) 5193.948 microseconds
5. md4 (raw) 5207.061 microseconds
6. fnv132 (hex) 5248.069 microseconds
7. fnv164 (raw) 5290.985 microseconds
8. md4 (hex) 5333.9 microseconds
9. tiger160,3 (raw) 5499.124 microseconds
10. tiger128,3 (hex) 5549.907 microseconds
11. tiger192,3 (raw) 5578.994 microseconds
12. tiger192,3 (hex) 5687.952 microseconds
13. tiger160,3 (hex) 5755.186 microseconds
14. tiger128,3 (raw) 5775.928 microseconds
15. crc32b (raw) 6839.036 microseconds
16. crc32 (raw) 6983.995 microseconds
17. crc32 (hex) 7061.004 microseconds
18. crc32b (hex) 7097.005 microseconds
19. joaat (raw) 7505.893 microseconds
20. tiger160,4 (raw) 7548.093 microseconds
21. joaat (hex) 7570.028 microseconds
22. tiger192,4 (raw) 7591.009 microseconds
23. tiger160,4 (hex) 7630.825 microseconds
24. tiger128,4 (hex) 7750.034 microseconds
25. tiger128,4 (raw) 7750.988 microseconds
26. sha1 (raw) 8049.964 microseconds
27. tiger192,4 (hex) 8301.019 microseconds
28. haval128,3 (raw) 9046.792 microseconds
29. haval192,3 (raw) 9313.106 microseconds
30. haval224,3 (raw) 9315.013 microseconds
31. haval160,3 (raw) 9329.795 microseconds
32. haval256,3 (raw) 9404.182 microseconds
33. haval160,3 (hex) 9521.007 microseconds
34. md5 (raw) 9599.924 microseconds
35. haval128,3 (hex) 9603.023 microseconds
36. haval192,3 (hex) 9624.004 microseconds
37. haval256,3 (hex) 9635.925 microseconds
38. haval224,3 (hex) 9652.853 microseconds
39. md5 (hex) 9654.045 microseconds
40. haval256,4 (raw) 12173.891 microseconds
41. haval160,4 (raw) 12346.982 microseconds
42. haval256,4 (hex) 12598.037 microseconds
43. haval224,4 (hex) 12600.898 microseconds
44. haval128,4 (raw) 12680.053 microseconds
45. sha512 (raw) 12681.961 microseconds
46. haval160,4 (hex) 12733.936 microseconds
47. sha384 (raw) 12766.122 microseconds
48. haval192,4 (hex) 12813.091 microseconds
49. haval192,4 (raw) 12818.098 microseconds
50. haval128,4 (hex) 12836.933 microseconds
It seems that the adler32 algorithm has gotten a lot faster.
Nicolas Pamart ¶
9 years ago
Be carreful ! SHA256 return plain text string for empty field !!! empty function will not work ! Make a test before hash your POST.
Anonymous ¶
4 years ago
<?PHP
function allhash($d){
foreach(hash_algos() as $v){
$r[] = "$v\t Length: ".strlen(hash($v, $d));
}
return $r;
}
print_r(allhash(1));
?>
output:
Array
(
[0] => md2 Length: 32
[1] => md4 Length: 32
[2] => md5 Length: 32
[3] => sha1 Length: 40
[4] => sha224 Length: 56
[5] => sha256 Length: 64
[6] => sha384 Length: 96
[7] => sha512/224 Length: 56
[8] => sha512/256 Length: 64
[9] => sha512 Length: 128
[10] => sha3-224 Length: 56
[11] => sha3-256 Length: 64
[12] => sha3-384 Length: 96
[13] => sha3-512 Length: 128
[14] => ripemd128 Length: 32
[15] => ripemd160 Length: 40
[16] => ripemd256 Length: 64
[17] => ripemd320 Length: 80
[18] => whirlpool Length: 128
[19] => tiger128,3 Length: 32
[20] => tiger160,3 Length: 40
[21] => tiger192,3 Length: 48
[22] => tiger128,4 Length: 32
[23] => tiger160,4 Length: 40
[24] => tiger192,4 Length: 48
[25] => snefru Length: 64
[26] => snefru256 Length: 64
[27] => gost Length: 64
[28] => gost-crypto Length: 64
[29] => adler32 Length: 8
[30] => crc32 Length: 8
[31] => crc32b Length: 8
[32] => crc32c Length: 8
[33] => fnv132 Length: 8
[34] => fnv1a32 Length: 8
[35] => fnv164 Length: 16
[36] => fnv1a64 Length: 16
[37] => joaat Length: 8
[38] => haval128,3 Length: 32
[39] => haval160,3 Length: 40
[40] => haval192,3 Length: 48
[41] => haval224,3 Length: 56
[42] => haval256,3 Length: 64
[43] => haval128,4 Length: 32
[44] => haval160,4 Length: 40
[45] => haval192,4 Length: 48
[46] => haval224,4 Length: 56
[47] => haval256,4 Length: 64
[48] => haval128,5 Length: 32
[49] => haval160,5 Length: 40
[50] => haval192,5 Length: 48
[51] => haval224,5 Length: 56
[52] => haval256,5 Length: 64
)
