Do questions on whether a hash function is almost universal belong here or on math.SE? They seem to belong both places: on math.SE because the question is about mathematics, and here because cryptography is one of the main uses of such functions.

  • $\begingroup$ Fun fact: replace hash function is almost universal by Elliptic Curves and the question still makes sense. =D $\endgroup$ – Biv May 24 '16 at 11:53
  • $\begingroup$ If you're talking about cryptographic hash functions, it should be fine here. $\endgroup$ – CodesInChaos May 24 '16 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ I am specifically referring to a candidate one-time authenticator. $\endgroup$ – Demi May 24 '16 at 15:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Demetri, if you do post the question on the main site, please add a link here to it. $\endgroup$ – mikeazo May 25 '16 at 15:28

Mathematics applied to cryptography is on-topic here. If the question is good, but the connection to crypto is too weak, we'll migrate it to math.se.

The only doubt I have about your question is that it might require in-depth cryptoanalysis of the primitive you're asking about, in which case it wouldn't be acceptable here. If the answer can idealize the primitive, e.g. to a PRF or random permutation, it's likely on-topic, if it requires differential cryptoanalysis it's likely off-topic.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .