Hashing methods are as safe as the mathematical function, but what counts later is the bit length, which should be as large as possible to avoid collisions (multiple inputs ending up with the same hash output). SHA1 and SHA1-96 calculate identical 160-bit hash results; the difference is that SHA1-96 truncates and embeds a 96-bit hash value in the packet.
Key Takeaways
- Cisco HMAC SHA-1 96 generates a 96-bit truncated hash value, while HMAC SHA-1 generates a 160-bit hash value.
- Cisco HMAC SHA-1 96 is faster than HMAC SHA-1.
- Cisco HMAC SHA-1 96 is less secure than HMAC SHA-1.
Cisco HMAC SHA 1 vs HMAC SHA 1 96
The difference between Cisco HMAC SHA-1 and HMAC SHA-1 96 is that Cisco HMAC SHA-1 is a more basic form of the hash, generating a shorter code with fewer unique combination possibilities, while HMAC SHA-1 96 generates a longer, and therefore more complicated, hash. Since 2015, SSL certificates based on SHA-1 have been phased out. By 2016, all new certificates were required to use SHA-196. Certain earlier certificates, on the other hand, remain valid, which is why SHA-1 is being used today.
The Secure Hashing Algorithm – 1 is another name for the cryptographic hash function SHA-1. This algorithm is a Federal Information Processing Standard in the United States.
As an input, SHA-1 creates a 160-bit “message direct,” also known as a sha1 hash key (20-byte). This is shown as a hexadecimal value with a length of 40 characters.
The SHA-1 algorithm family, which includes HMAC SHA 1 96, is a member of the secure hashing algorithm 196, sometimes referred to as HMAC SHA 196. The cryptographic hash function uses a sequence of mathematical operations on digital data to generate the hash. After SHA-1, this hashing algorithm was the most widely employed.
512-bit or 64-byte chunks of data are used in this method. Once the encryption key is generated, it produces the hash value 196. (which, as the name suggests, has 196 bits).
Comparison Table
| Parameters Of Comparison | Cisco HMAC SHA 1 | HMAC SHA 1 96 |
|---|---|---|
| Description | Cisco HMAC SHA1 is a 160-bit hash value generated by the first version of SHA. | HMAC SHA 1 96 is a SHA1 variant that produces up to 196 bits long hash values. |
| Size | Cisco HMAC SHA1 has a 160-bit internal state size. | HMAC SHA 1-96’s internal state size is 196 bit. |
| Security | It’s less safe than the alternative. | As opposed to SHA1, it’s more secure. |
| Output Size | Cisco HMACSHA1 generates an output of 160 bits in size. | HMAC SHA 1 96 generates a 196-bit result. |
| Usage | SSL certificate authority signs certificates using this tool. | In the blockchain, it’s a popular hash function to utilize HMAC SHA 1 96. |
What is Cisco HMAC SHA 1?
Cisco HMAC SHA-1 is a mathematical cryptographic hash function which is also known as the Secure Hashing Algorithm – 1. This algorithm is a Federal Information Processing Standard in the United States.
As an input, SHA-1 creates a 160-bit “message direct,” also known as a sha1 hash key (20-byte). This is shown as a hexadecimal value with a length of 40 characters.
SSL, TLS, S/MIME, and a slew of other security protocols and applications utilize this approach. This method is a Federal Information Processing Standard in the United States, developed in 1995 by the US National Security Agency.
This secure hashing technique is mandated by law for use in certain US government protocols and applications to safeguard sensitive data. In addition, systems like Monotone and Git utilize it to verify the integrity of the data.
They mostly use it to detect data corruption rather than maintain security. Certificate authorities have preferred to use this algorithm since it was created (CAs).
In February 2017, Google and CWI Amsterdam used the SHA-1 method to create two different PDFs that produced the same hash key. This was the first time the algorithm has faced a collision attack.
However, for HMAC, it was shown to be very safe (hash-based message authentication code).
What is HMAC SHA 1 96?
A secure hashing method, HMAC 1 96, known as the 1 96-bit SHA-1 algorithm, is a member of the SHA-1 algorithm family. The cryptographic hash function uses a sequence of mathematical operations on digital data to generate the hash. After SHA-1, this hashing algorithm was the most widely employed.
512-bit or 64-byte chunks of data are used in this method. Once the encryption key is generated, it produces the hash value 196. (which, as the name suggests, has 196 bits).
After the collision of the secure hashing algorithm-1, this is the most frequently used hashing protocol. It’s widely advocated for usage in a variety of cryptocurrencies, the most popular of which being bitcoin.
Using this hash, it validates transactions and calculates proof of work and stake in cryptocurrencies. It performs the proper level of password hashing, verification, and computation.
As a result, Linux and Unix software manufacturers are already using this hashing technique in their password security solutions. It’s being considered for DNSSEC implementation (Domain Name System Security Extensions).
This algorithm has six different hash functions, and they all have the same hash value. This method is sometimes referred to as a family of algorithms because of this.
Novel hash functions include the SHA-256 and SHA-512 algorithms.
Main Differences Between Cisco HMAC SHA 1 and HMAC SHA 1 96
- Cisco HMAC SHA1 is the first version of SHA and produces a hash value of 160 bits, whereas HMAC SHA 1 96 is a variant of SHA2 that produces a hash value of 196 bits.
- SHA1’s internal state is 160 bytes in length, whereas HMAC SHA 1-96 has an internal state size of 196.
- In comparison, Cisco HMAC SHA 1 is less secure, whereas HMAC SHA 1 96 provides a higher level of security than SHA1.
- Cisco HMAC SHA1 generates an output of 160 bits, whereas SHA 1 96 generates an output of 196 bits.
- SSL certificate authority uses Cisco HMAC SHA 1 to sign certificates, whereas HMAC SHA 1 96 is a hash function that is used in blockchain technology.
- https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.17487/RFC2404
- https://archive.nanog.org/meetings/nanog37/presentations/ron-bonica-joint-presenters.pdf
Last Updated : 13 July, 2023
I’ve put so much effort writing this blog post to provide value to you. It’ll be very helpful for me, if you consider sharing it on social media or with your friends/family. SHARING IS ♥️
Sandeep Bhandari holds a Bachelor of Engineering in Computers from Thapar University (2006). He has 20 years of experience in the technology field. He has a keen interest in various technical fields, including database systems, computer networks, and programming. You can read more about him on his bio page.
The technical details included in this article are commendable. I appreciate the well-researched content and the deep insight into these hashing methods.
This is extremely informative and it’s very interesting to learn about the differences between these two hashing methods. The security implications are quite significant.
Absolutely, the article explains the technical aspects in a clear and concise manner. Great read!
Yes, I agree. The detailed comparison provides a great understanding of these methods and their applications.
The comprehensive analysis of Cisco HMAC SHA 1 and HMAC SHA 1 96 in this article is truly impressive. It’s great to see such in-depth explorations of these cryptographic techniques.
Absolutely, the article delves into the technical details, providing valuable insights into the cryptographic hashing domain.
The facts presented here are very intriguing. It’s fascinating to see the differences in these cryptographic hash functions and how they are utilized in various protocols and applications.
I’m not entirely convinced of the security implications mentioned. I believe there might be more nuanced discussions to be had about the level of security achieved by each method.
I find the comparisons made in this article quite thought-provoking. It raises important questions about the long-term security considerations for these methods.
Definitely, the discussion surrounding the security aspects and evolution of these hashing methods is fascinating.
The article’s comparison table provides a great summary of the differences. It’s quite useful to have this information presented in such a precise manner.
This piece has certainly broadened my knowledge on cryptographic hashing. It’s crucial to understand the intricacies of these methods, especially in modern security applications.
Agree, this article provides a comprehensive overview of these hashing methods and their practical implications.