hash()
(PHP 5 >= 5.1.2, PHP 7, PECL hash >= 1.1)
生成哈希值(消息摘要)
说明
hash(string $algo,string $data[,bool $raw_output=FALSE]): string
参数
- $algo
要使用的哈希算法,例如:"md5","sha256","haval160,4"等。
- $data
要进行哈希运算的消息。
- $raw_output
设置为
TRUE
输出原始二进制数据,设置为FALSE
输出小写 16 进制字符串。
返回值
如果$raw_output设置为TRUE
,则返回原始二进制数据表示的信息摘要,否则返回 16 进制小写字符串格式表示的信息摘要。
更新日志
版本 | 说明 |
---|---|
5.4.0 | tiger 算法使用大端(big-endian)字节序。参见下面的示例。 |
范例
一个hash()例程
<?php echo hash('ripemd160', 'The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.'); ?>
以上例程会输出:
ec457d0a974c48d5685a7efa03d137dc8bbde7e3
使用 PHP 5.4 或者更高版本计算 tiger 哈希值
<?php function old_tiger($data = "", $width=192, $rounds = 3) { return substr( implode( array_map( function ($h) { return str_pad(bin2hex(strrev($h)), 16, "0"); }, str_split(hash("tiger192,$rounds", $data, true), 8) ) ), 0, 48-(192-$width)/4 ); } echo hash('tiger192,3', 'a-string'), PHP_EOL; echo old_tiger('a-string'), PHP_EOL; ?>
以上例程在PHP 5.3中的输出:
146a7492719b3564094efe7abbd40a7416fd900179d02773 64359b7192746a14740ad4bb7afe4e097327d0790190fd16
以上例程在PHP 5.4中的输出:
64359b7192746a14740ad4bb7afe4e097327d0790190fd16 146a7492719b3564094efe7abbd40a7416fd900179d02773
参见
hash_file()
使用给定文件的内容生成哈希值hash_hmac()
使用 HMAC 方法生成带有密钥的哈希值hash_init()
初始化增量哈希运算上下文md5()
计算字符串的 MD5 散列值sha1()
计算字符串的 sha1 散列值
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
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.
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.
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>
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".
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.
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)
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>'; ?>
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)
<?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 */ ?>
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(); ?>
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>
<?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
If the given algo parameter contains an algorithm that is not supported, the hash function will return bool(false) and issue a warning.
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.
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"; ?>
Be carreful ! SHA256 return plain text string for empty field !!! empty function will not work ! Make a test before hash your POST.
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.