highwayhash

I'm curious what the article is referring to when it comes to collision resistance. I was looking at the GitHub repo posted below and saw only claims of "strong" collision resistance: https://github.com/google/highwayhash Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with the details of the collision resistance properties of the other hash functions here to know how they compare. Could someone elaborate on the specifics of why HighwayHash compares poorly in terms of collision resistance to the others in the benchmark?

They claim the same "fastness" as Siphash whilst actually being on the slower end of all good hash functions. Too slow for real world usage, and not secure enough for real world security attacks. Compare https://github.com/rurban/smhasher and my complaints https://github.com/google/highwayhash/issues/28

This is a pretty sweet hash function, with security guarantees similar to SipHash but about 5x faster. Here's more info: https://github.com/google/highwayhash

HighwayHash uses PSHUFB to spread entropy from twin 32x32=64 muls across 128-bit vectors [or vector halves, on AVX2]. See ZipperMerge in https://github.com/google/highwayhash/blob/master/highwayhas....

The critique. There's more rambling by (I think) the same author here: https://github.com/google/highwayhash/issues/28 His arguments are a little inconsistent and ambiguous, which suggests either a misunderstanding, perhaps a touch of mania, or both. But they're all wrong--whether at face value or when assuming the best possible version--at least regarding the security and the ease of generating collisions. As for the argument that SipHash is too slow, that's a qualitative judgment that many people have made. But they don't usually need to first convince themselves, erroneously, that SipHash is insecure.

I didn't know much about this argument so I looked it up and funny enough it's you arguing here too: https://github.com/google/highwayhash/issues/28 Still trying to wrap my head around exactly what is being argued... but it's starting to feel like there's something personal going on here, not gonna lie. It's a bit quaint. (Also a bit curious why Rust is looped into this. It seems like Rust was insecure because the same key was being used for all tables, not really because the hash function was insecure?)