CubeHash
cryptographic hash function
CubeHash is a cryptographic hash function submitted to the NIST hash function competition by Daniel J. Bernstein. CubeHash has a 128 byte state, uses wide pipe construction, and is ARX based. Message blocks are XORed into the initial bits of a 128-byte state, which then goes through an r-round bijective transformation between blocks. The initial NIST proposal ("Cubehash8/1") required about 200 cycles per byte. After clarifications from NIST, the author changed the proposal to Cubehash16/32, which "is approximately 16 times faster than CubeHash8/1, easily catching up to both SHA-256 and SHA-512 on the reference platform" while still maintaining a "comfortable security margin".
CubeHash advanced to the second round of the competition, but was not chosen as one of the 5 finalists. According to NIST, it has a "simple, well-understood design" that is suitable for constrained environments. However, performance suffers for short messages when the processor does not have a vector unit.
Bernstein has since tuned the parameters further and his main recommendation is CubeHash512, defined as CubeHash16+16/32+32–512.
Operation
This description refers to the latest specification, and not the NIST submission.
“CubeHash” enters the record as cryptographic hash function. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what CubeHash, cryptographic and hash can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“CubeHash” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, CubeHash, cryptographic and hash provides the most credible route into that argument.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 18, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q4036754. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “CubeHash”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow CubeHash primary sources, CubeHash archive and CubeHash research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “CubeHash”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “CubeHash” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.