This is Secure Hash Algorithms family which is implemented for scala, scala-js and scala-native, without any dependencies.
This code base implements SHA-0, SHA-1, SHA-2 and SHA-3. Keep in mind that SHA-0 is broken and I've implemented it just for fun :)
The propose of this code to be fast enough to hash something up to a few megabytes at the worst case and at few kilobytes as usual case. Where? At any scala-based application where hashing isn't the bottleneck. This code hasn't got any CPU related optimizations, nor multithreading features for Keccak / SHA-3.
If you need very fast and secure hash function for scala I suggest to use blake3 which is 3 time faster.
You can use it as
libraryDependencies += "pt.kcry" %%% "sha" % "x.x.x"
The latest version is
API is pretty simple and quite limited :)
scala> import pt.kcry.sha._
import pt.kcry.sha._
scala> Sha2_256.hash("abc".getBytes())
val res1: Array[Byte] = Array(-70, 120, 22, -65, -113, 1, -49, -22, 65, 65, 64, -34, 93, -82, 34, 35, -80, 3, 97, -93, -106, 23, 122, -100, -76, 16, -1, 97, -14, 0, 21, -83)
scala>
You may also create a new object from specified hash to update it, and at some
point finish it like this:
scala> import pt.kcry.sha._
import pt.kcry.sha._
scala> val sha1 = new Sha1()
val sha1: pt.kcry.sha.Sha1 = pt.kcry.sha.Sha1@1224e1b6
scala> sha1.update("abc".getBytes(), 0, 2)
scala> sha1.update("abc".getBytes(), 2, 1)
scala> val hashed = new Array[Byte](20)
val hashed: Array[Byte] = Array(0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
scala> sha1.finish(hashed, 0)
scala> hashed
val res3: Array[Byte] = Array(-87, -103, 62, 54, 71, 6, -127, 106, -70, 62, 37, 113, 120, 80, -62, 108, -100, -48, -40, -99)
scala>
All these objects aren't thread safe. After finish it should be treated as
broken.
Anyway, I did a few benchmarks to compare this implementation with JVM one
which was run on JDK 11.0.11, OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM, 11.0.11+9-LTS:
Benchmark (len) Mode Cnt Score Error Units
ShaBenchmark.jvmSha1 1024 avgt 5 3,686 ± 0,005 us/op
ShaBenchmark.jvmSha1 16384 avgt 5 55,556 ± 1,103 us/op
ShaBenchmark.jvmSha256 1024 avgt 5 4,326 ± 0,012 us/op
ShaBenchmark.jvmSha256 16384 avgt 5 61,924 ± 0,025 us/op
ShaBenchmark.jvmSha3_256 1024 avgt 5 4,129 ± 0,045 us/op
ShaBenchmark.jvmSha3_256 16384 avgt 5 61,627 ± 1,422 us/op
ShaBenchmark.jvmSha3_512 1024 avgt 5 7,974 ± 0,091 us/op
ShaBenchmark.jvmSha3_512 16384 avgt 5 111,711 ± 0,372 us/op
ShaBenchmark.jvmSha512 1024 avgt 5 3,172 ± 0,001 us/op
ShaBenchmark.jvmSha512 16384 avgt 5 44,205 ± 0,024 us/op
ShaBenchmark.sha1 1024 avgt 5 4,285 ± 0,002 us/op
ShaBenchmark.sha1 16384 avgt 5 64,380 ± 0,022 us/op
ShaBenchmark.sha256 1024 avgt 5 4,330 ± 0,005 us/op
ShaBenchmark.sha256 16384 avgt 5 63,293 ± 0,024 us/op
ShaBenchmark.sha3_256 1024 avgt 5 5,919 ± 0,019 us/op
ShaBenchmark.sha3_256 16384 avgt 5 84,952 ± 0,468 us/op
ShaBenchmark.sha3_512 1024 avgt 5 8,114 ± 0,078 us/op
ShaBenchmark.sha3_512 16384 avgt 5 118,706 ± 0,924 us/op
ShaBenchmark.sha512 1024 avgt 5 3,168 ± 0,007 us/op
ShaBenchmark.sha512 16384 avgt 5 44,630 ± 0,017 us/op
for easy compare I've performed the same benchmark on blake3:
Benchmark (dataLen) (hashLen) Mode Cnt Score Error Units
Blake3Benchmark.newHasher 1024 256 avgt 5 2,143 ± 0,037 us/op
Blake3Benchmark.newHasher 1024 512 avgt 5 2,564 ± 0,019 us/op
Blake3Benchmark.newHasher 16384 256 avgt 5 26,472 ± 0,023 us/op
Blake3Benchmark.newHasher 16384 512 avgt 5 26,641 ± 0,131 us/op