Submitted:
21 August 2025
Posted:
22 August 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
- It presents the first comprehensive empirical benchmarking of Ascon-Hash using SMHasher, covering both cryptographic and structural test categories.
- It compares the performance and statistical behavior of Ascon hashes against cryptographic standards such as SHA3-256, SHAKE256, and BLAKE2s, as well as high-speed non-cryptographic hashes.
- It demonstrates the practical utility of Ascon hashes in lightweight applications, including Bloom filters, structural hashing, and secure indexing for embedded and IoT systems.
2. Related Work
3. Overview of the Ascon Hashing Algorithm
- Domain separation: Ascon-CXOF128 uses a different initialization vector (IV) from Ascon-XOF128 and supports user-defined customization strings. The IV for Ascon-CXOF128 is 0x0000080000cc0004. For instance, Ascon-CXOF128 enables domain separation by allowing parameters such as output lengths or application-specific identifiers to be encoded into the customization string. This guarantees that outputs derived in different contexts (e.g., key derivation, Merkle tree hashing, or protocol identifiers) remain distinct, even if the same input message is used.
- Additional input: Alongside the message, Ascon-CXOF128 accepts a customization string Z whose length is at most 2048 bits (256 bytes).
- Input formatting: The customization string Z is prepended to the message blocks as:where is a 64-bit integer denoting the bit-length of the customization string, and are 64-bit blocks obtained by parsing and padding Z.
3.1. Ascon Permutation

4. Methodology
4.1. Benchmarking Framework and Environment
4.2. Hash Function Selection and Comparison Scope
4.3. Test Categories in SMHasher
- Avalanche Test: This test measures the bit diffusion strength of a hash function by evaluating how a single-bit change in the input affects the output [51]. For each input length, thousands of input pairs differing by exactly one bit are hashed. The percentage of output bits that flip is recorded for each case. Ideally, each output bit should flip with 50% probability, indicating perfect avalanche behavior. SMHasher reports the worst-case output bit bias, defined as the maximum deviation from this ideal across all output bits. A low bias indicates strong mixing and good diffusion properties.
-
Keyset Tests: SMHasher includes several structured key categories, namely Sparse, Permutation, and Cyclic inputs, that simulate constrained, low-entropy, or patterned input conditions [19]. These tests evaluate how well a hash function maintains uniformity, diffusion, and collision resistance in adversarial or real-world scenarios.Sparse Test: This test simulates low-entropy input conditions by generating keys with only a few active bits. It models use cases such as feature flags, protocol identifiers, and sparse data encodings. A robust hash function should diffuse these small changes evenly and avoid output bias or clustering.Permutation Test: Keys are generated by selecting up to seven values from a pool of eight fixed blocks, simulating structured inputs often seen in memory-constrained systems, cryptographic identifiers, or header formats. This test reveals how the hash function handles repeated structures and limited entropy sources.Cyclic Test: This test evaluates the hash function’s behavior on periodic and repeating input patterns, such as those found in network packet headers, sensor data streams, or protocol padding. The hash function must maintain randomness and collision resistance, even when input entropy is low or highly regular.Zeroes Test: This test detects output bias by measuring the frequency of zero bits across all hash outputs. A well-designed hash function should exhibit a near-random distribution of zeros and ones. Excessive zeroes may indicate insufficient diffusion or predictable output bits, especially in the most or least significant positions.
- Bit Distribution and Bias: This test evaluates whether the hash function’s output bits are uniformly distributed across different input conditions. It identifies skewed or biased bits that may reduce the randomness or security of the hash output.
4.4. Python Simulation Framework
5. Results
5.1. Structural Benchmarking Using SMHasher Suite
5.2. Blockchain-Enabled Replay Attack Mitigation for IoT Edge Devices
5.3. Lightweight Hash Integration in PQC Signatures and Blockchain-Enabled IoT Authentication
5.4. Blockchain-Backed Fingerprinting and Tamper-Evident Logging for IoT Devices
5.5. Merkle Tree Diffusion Analysis for Blockchain Integrity in IoT Systems

6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| IoT | Internet Of Things |
| AEAD | Authenticated Encryption with Associated Data |
| XOF | eXtendable Output Function |
| NIST | National Institute of Standards and Technology |
| LWC | Lightweight Cryptography |
| SHA | Secure Hash Algorithm |
| MMO | Matyas–Meyer–Oseas |
| AES | Advanced Encryption Standard |
| FPR | False Positive Rate |
| PQC | Post Quantum Cryptography |
References
- Paar, C.; Pelzl, J. Understanding Cryptography: A Textbook for Students and Practitioners; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, L.; Zhu, X. Hashing techniques: A survey and taxonomy. ACM Computing Surveys (Csur) 2017, 50, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Safi, M.; Dadkhah, S.; Shoeleh, F.; Mahdikhani, H.; Molyneaux, H.; Ghorbani, A.A. A survey on IoT profiling, fingerprinting, and identification. ACM Transactions on Internet of Things 2022, 3, 1–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemire, D.; Kaser, O. Faster 64-bit universal hashing using carry-less multiplications. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 11th ACM International Conference on Performance Engineering (ICPE), 2019, pp. 83–90.
- Bloom, B.H. Space/time trade-offs in hash coding with allowable errors. Communications of the ACM 1970, 13, 422–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turan, M.S.; McKay, K.A.; Kang, J.; Kelsey, J.; Chang, D. Ascon-Based Lightweight Cryptography Standards for Constrained Devices: Authenticated Encryption, Hash, and Extendable Output Functions. Special Publication SP 800-232, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2025. [CrossRef]
- Wu, Y. Hardware-Software Co-Design of the Lightweight Authenticated Encryption Algorithm ASCON for Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Information Technology, Comunication Ecosystem and Management (ITCEM); 2024; pp. 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malal, A. High-Performance FPGA Implementations of Lightweight ASCON-128 and ASCON-128a with Enhanced Throughput-to-Area Efficiency. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2025/825, 2025. [CrossRef]
- Bernstein, D.J. SUPERCOP: System for Unified Performance Evaluation Related to Cryptographic Operations and Primitives. https://bench.cr.yp.to/supercop.html, 2022. Accessed: 2025-07-30.
- Project, E. eBACS: ECRYPT Benchmarking of Cryptographic Systems. https://bench.cr.yp.to/index.html, 2022. Accessed: 2025-07-30.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). SHA-3 Standard: Permutation-Based Hash and Extendable-Output Functions. Federal Information Processing Standards Publication FIPS 202, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2015. [CrossRef]
- Bertoni, G.; Daemen, J.; Peeters, M.; Assche, G.V. The SHA-3 Family: KECCAK, SHAKE and RawSHAKE. https://keccak.team/keccak_specs_summary.html, 2014.
- Aumasson, J.P.; Neves, S.; Wilcox-O’Hearn, Z.; Winnerlein, C. BLAKE2 — fast secure hashing. https://blake2.net/, 2013.
- Appleby, A. MurmurHash3 Implementation (SMHasher). https://github.com/aappleby/smhasher/blob/master/src/MurmurHash3.cpp, 2012. Public-domain reference implementation of MurmurHash3.
- Cyan4973 / xxHash contributors. xxHash – Extremely fast non-cryptographic hash algorithm. https://xxhash.com/. Accessed: 2025-07-20.
- Gladis Kurian, M.; Chen, Y. Ascon on FPGA: Post-Quantum Safe Authenticated Encryption with Replay Protection for IoT. Electronics 2025, 14, 2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amudha, G. Dilated transaction access and retrieval: Improving the information retrieval of blockchain-assimilated internet of things transactions. Wireless Personal Communications 2022, 127, 85–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Zubaidie, M. Implication of lightweight and robust hash function to support key exchange in health sensor networks. Symmetry 2023, 15, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Urban, R.; Appleby, A. SMHasher: Test Suite for Hash Functions. https://github.com/rurban/smhasher, 2023.
- Abed, S.; Jaffal, R.; Mohd, B.J.; Al-Shayeji, M. An analysis and evaluation of lightweight hash functions for blockchain-based IoT devices. Cluster computing 2021, 24, 3065–3084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patgiri, R.; Nayak, S.; Muppalaneni, N.B. Is Bloom Filter a Bad Choice for Security and Privacy? In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Information Networking (ICOIN); 2021; pp. 648–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menezes, A.; van Oorschot, P.; Vanstone, S. Handbook of Applied Cryptography; CRC Press, 1996.
- Windarta, S.; Suryadi, S.; Ramli, K.; Pranggono, B.; Gunawan, T.S. Lightweight cryptographic hash functions: Design trends, comparative study, and future directions. Ieee Access 2022, 10, 82272–82294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogaway, P.; Shrimpton, T. Introduction to Modern Cryptography. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Cryptology in India (INDOCRYPT). Springer, 2004, pp. 1–14.
- Katz, J.; Lindell, Y. Introduction to Modern Cryptography, 3rd ed.; CRC Press, 2020.
- Rivest, R.L. The MD4 Message Digest Algorithm. RFC 1320, Internet Engineering Task Force, 1992. [CrossRef]
- Rivest, R.L. The MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm. RFC 1321, Internet Engineering Task Force, 1992. [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Yu, H. How to break MD5 and other hash functions. In Proceedings of the Annual international conference on the theory and applications of cryptographic techniques. Springer; 2005; pp. 19–35. [Google Scholar]
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Secure Hash Standard. Federal Information Processing Standards Publication FIPS PUB 180-1, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 1995. Withdrawn on August 1, 2002. Superseded by FIPS 180-2. [CrossRef]
- Stevens, M.; Bursztein, E.; Karpman, P.; Albertini, A.; Markov, Y. The first collision for full SHA-1. Cryptology ePrint Archive, Paper 2017/190, 2017.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Secure Hash Standard (SHS). Federal Information Processing Standards Publication FIPS 180-4, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2015. [CrossRef]
- NIST. Cryptographic Hash Algorithm Competition. https://csrc.nist.gov/projects/hash-functions/sha-3-project, 2007.
- Bertoni, G.; Daemen, J.; Peeters, M.; Van Assche, G. Keccak sponge function family main document. Submission to NIST (Round 2) 2009, 3, 320–337. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, T.M.; Reddy, K.S.; Rinaldi, S.; Parameshachari, B.D.; Arunachalam, K. A low area high speed FPGA implementation of AES architecture for cryptography application. Electronics 2021, 10, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, N.; Hasan, S.R. A new ASIC implementation of an advanced encryption standard (AES) crypto-hardware accelerator. Microelectronics Journal 2021, 117, 105255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shukla, P.K.; Aljaedi, A.; Pareek, P.K.; Alharbi, A.R.; Jamal, S.S. AES based white box cryptography in digital signature verification. Sensors 2022, 22, 9444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rana, M.; Mamun, Q.; Islam, R. Lightweight cryptography in IoT networks: A survey. Future Generation Computer Systems 2022, 129, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.; Sharma, P.K.; Moon, S.Y.; Park, J.H. Advanced lightweight encryption algorithms for IoT devices: survey, challenges and solutions. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing 2024, 15, 1625–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bertoni, G.; Daemen, J.; Peeters, M.; Assche, G.V. Sponge Functions. In Proceedings of the ECRYPT Hash Workshop, 2007. pp. 11, 21–23, 27.
- Shor, P.W. Algorithms for Quantum Computation: Discrete Logarithms and Factoring. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). IEEE, 1994, pp. 124–134. [CrossRef]
- Grover, L.K. A fast quantum mechanical algorithm for database search. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, New York, NY, USA, 1996; STOC ’96, p. 212–219. [CrossRef]
- Joseph, D.; Misoczki, R.; Manzano, M.; Tricot, J.; Pinuaga, F.D.; Lacombe, O.; Leichenauer, S.; Hidary, J.; Venables, P.; Hansen, R. Transitioning organizations to post-quantum cryptography. Nature 2022, 605, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernstein, D.J.; Hülsing, A.; Kölbl, S.; Niederhagen, R.; Rijneveld, J.; Schwabe, P. The SPHINCS+ signature framework. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security, 2019, pp. 2129–2146.
- Sharma, J.; Kim, D.; Lee, A.; Seo, D. On differential privacy-based framework for enhancing user data privacy in mobile edge computing environment. Ieee access 2021, 9, 38107–38118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alfrhan, A.; Moulahi, T.; Alabdulatif, A. Comparative study on hash functions for lightweight blockchain in Internet of Things (IoT). Blockchain: Research and Applications 2021, 2, 100036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernstein, D.J., Introduction to post-quantum cryptography. In Post-Quantum Cryptography; Bernstein, D.J.; Buchmann, J.; Dahmen, E., Eds.; Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009; pp. 1–14. [CrossRef]
- Turan, M.S.; McKay, K.A.; Chang, D.; Kang, J.; Kelsey, J. Ascon-Based Lightweight Cryptography Standards for Constrained Devices: Authenticated Encryption, Hash, and Extendable Output Functions (Initial Public Draft). NIST Special Publication SP 800-232 ipd, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 2024. [CrossRef]
- Ascon – Lightweight Cryptography, 2025. Accessed: 19 August 2025.
- Nguyen, K.D.; Dang, T.K.; Kieu-Do-Nguyen, B.; Le, D.H.; Pham, C.K.; Hoang, T.T. ASIC Implementation of ASCON Lightweight Cryptography for IoT Applications. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs 2025, 72, 278–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weissbart, L.; Picek, S. Lightweight but not easy: Side-channel analysis of the ascon authenticated cipher on a 32-bit microcontroller. Cryptology ePrint Archive 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Webster, A.F.; Tavares, S.E. On the design of S-boxes. In Proceedings of the Conference on the theory and application of cryptographic techniques. Springer; 1985; pp. 523–534. [Google Scholar]
- Tarkoma, S.; Rothenberg, C.E.; Lagerspetz, E. Theory and practice of bloom filters for distributed systems. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 2011, 14, 131–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, K.; Li, Q.; Sun, L. Towards automatic fingerprinting of IoT devices in the cyberspace. Computer networks 2019, 148, 318–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merkle, R.C. A digital signature based on a conventional encryption function. In Proceedings of the Conference on the theory and application of cryptographic techniques. Springer; 1987; pp. 369–378. [Google Scholar]
- Paik, H.Y.; Xu, X.; Bandara, H.D.; Lee, S.U.; Lo, S.K. Analysis of data management in blockchain-based systems: From architecture to governance. Ieee Access 2019, 7, 186091–186107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbasian Dehkordi, S.; Farajzadeh, K.; Rezazadeh, J.; Farahbakhsh, R.; Sandrasegaran, K.; Abbasian Dehkordi, M. A survey on data aggregation techniques in IoT sensor networks. Wireless Networks 2020, 26, 1243–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, R.; Yu, F.R.; Si, P.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, Y. Integrated blockchain and edge computing systems: A survey, some research issues and challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials 2019, 21, 1508–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magyari, A.; Chen, Y. Securing the Internet of Things with Ascon-Sign. Internet of Things 2024, 28, 101394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magyari, A.; Chen, Y. Post-Quantum SecureSensor Networks: Combining Ascon and SPHINCS+. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 4th International Conference on Electronic Communications, Internet of Things and Big Data (ICEIB); 2024; pp. 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amiet, D.; Leuenberger, L.; Curiger, A.; Zbinden, P. FPGA-based SPHINCS+ Implementations: Mind the Glitch. In Proceedings of the 2020 23rd Euromicro Conference on Digital System Design (DSD); 2020; pp. 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amiet, D.; Curiger, A.; Zbinden, P. FPGA-based Accelerator for Post-Quantum Signature Scheme SPHINCS-256. IACR Transactions on Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems 2018, 2018, 18–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martino, R.; Cilardo, A. SHA-2 Acceleration Meeting the Needs of Emerging Applications: A Comparative Survey. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 28415–28436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joan, D.; Vincent, R. The design of Rijndael: AES-the advanced encryption standard. Information Security and Cryptography 2002, 196. [Google Scholar]
- Menezes, A.J.; Van Oorschot, P.C.; Vanstone, S.A. Handbook of applied cryptography; CRC press, 2018.
- Schneier, B.; Kelsey, J. Secure audit logs to support computer forensics. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC) 1999, 2, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morillo Reina, J.D.; Mateo Sanguino, T.J. Decentralized and Secure Blockchain Solution for Tamper-Proof Logging Events. Future Internet 2025, 17, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulothungan, V. Using Blockchain Ledgers to Record AI Decisions in IoT. IoT 2025, 6, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuznetsov, O.; Rusnak, A.; Yezhov, A.; Kanonik, D.; Kuznetsova, K.; Domin, O. Efficient and Universal Merkle Tree Inclusion Proofs via OR Aggregation. Cryptography 2024, 8, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berbecaru, D.; Albertalli, L. On the performance and use of a space-efficient merkle tree traversal algorithm in real-time applications for wireless and sensor networks. In Proceedings of the 2008 IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications. IEEE; 2008; pp. 234–240. [Google Scholar]
- Rescorla, E. The transport layer security (TLS) protocol version 1.3. Technical report, 2018.
- Digital Signature Standard (DSS). Technical Report FIPS PUB 186-5, NIST, 2023.









| i | i | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0x000000000000003c | 8 | 0x00000000000000b4 |
| 1 | 0x000000000000002d | 9 | 0x00000000000000a5 |
| 2 | 0x000000000000001e | 10 | 0x0000000000000096 |
| 3 | 0x000000000000000f | 11 | 0x0000000000000087 |
| 4 | 0x00000000000000f0 | 12 | 0x0000000000000078 |
| 5 | 0x00000000000000e1 | 13 | 0x0000000000000069 |
| 6 | 0x00000000000000d2 | 14 | 0x000000000000005a |
| 7 | 0x00000000000000c3 | 15 | 0x000000000000004b |
| x | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | a | b | c | d | e | f |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBox(x) | 4 | b | 1f | 14 | 1a | 15 | 9 | 2 | 1b | 5 | 8 | 12 | 1d | 3 | 6 | 1c |
| x | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 1a | 1b | 1c | 1d | 1e | 1f |
| SBox(x) | 1e | 13 | 7 | e | 0 | d | 11 | 18 | 10 | c | 1 | 19 | 16 | a | f | 17 |
| Variant | Output Type | Potential Applications |
|---|---|---|
| Ascon-Hash | Fixed (256-bit) | Message authentication, digital signatures |
| Ascon-XOF | Extendable | Key derivation, Merkle trees, PRFs |
| Ascon-CXOF | Extendable w/ context | Domain-separated hashing |
| Algorithm | Avalanche Bias (%) | Sparse (%) | Perm. (%) | Cyclic (%) | Zeroes (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ascon-Hash256 | 0.823 | 0.968 | 0.081 | 0.151 | 0.322 |
| SHA3-256 | 1.013 | 0.581 | 0.093 | 0.182 | 0.330 |
| BLAKE2S-256 | 0.855 | 0.594 | 0.099 | 0.204 | 0.424 |
| MurmurHash3 | 0.787 | 0.594 | 0.088 | 0.183 | 0.243 |
| xxHash | 0.780 | 0.649 | 0.084 | 0.134 | 0.332 |
| Scheme | Security | Device | Sig. Size | LUT | FF | Area (BRAM) | DSP | Fclk (MHz) | Tsign (ms) | Power (W) | Esign (mWs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ascon-Sign-128s [59] | 1 | Artix-7 | 7.8 kB | 7.0k | 5.9k | 1.0 | 0 | 100 | 822.3 | 0.208 | 170 |
| SPHINCS+-128s [60] | 1 | Artix-7 | 8.1 kB | 48k | 73k | 11.5 | 0 | 500 | 12.4 | 9.71 | 120 |
| SPHINCS+-256s [60] | 5 | Artix-7 | 29.8 kB | 51k | 75k | 22.5 | 1 | 500 | 19.3 | 9.80 | 188 |
| SPHINCS-256 [61] | N/A | Kintex-7 | 41 kB | 19k | 38k | – | 36 | 525 | 1.53 | 4.97 | 7.6 |
| Function | Output size (bits) | Collision | Preimage | 2nd Preimage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ascon-Hash256 | 256 | 128 | 128 | 128 |
| Ascon-XOF128 | L | |||
| Ascon-CXOF128 | L | |||
| SHA3-224 | 224 | 112 | 224 | 224 |
| SHA3-256 | 256 | 128 | 256 | 256 |
| SHA3-384 | 384 | 192 | 384 | 384 |
| SHA3-512 | 512 | 256 | 512 | 512 |
| SHAKE128 | L | |||
| SHAKE256 | L |
| Log ID | Log Entry |
|---|---|
| L1 | Temp:22C;Time:123456 |
| L2 | Temp:23C;Time:123456 |
| L3 | Temp:22C;Time:123457 |
| L4 | Temp:22C;Time:123456;Status:OK |
| L5 | Temp:22C;Time:123456;Status:FAIL |
| L6 | Temp:23C;Time:123457 |
| L7 | Temp:23C;Time:123456;Status:OK |
| L8 | Temp:23C;Time:123456;Status:FAIL |
| L9 | Temp:22C;Time:123457;Status:OK |
| L10 | Temp:22C;Time:123457;Status:FAIL |
| Algorithm | Mean bits flipped | Std. dev. |
|---|---|---|
| Ascon-Hash256 | 128.0 | 6.08 |
| BLAKE2s-256 | 127.8 | 4.45 |
| MurmurHash3-256 (fair) | 127.6 | 6.41 |
| SHA3-256 | 126.4 | 6.83 |
| SHAKE256-256 | 126.0 | 6.69 |
| xxHash-256 (fair) | 125.0 | 5.73 |
| Level | Count | Ascon-Hash | SHA3-256 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Var | Min | Max | StdDev | Mean | Var | Min | Max | StdDev | ||
| 0 | 256 | 8.15 | 999.55 | 0 | 151 | 31.62 | 8.02 | 969.05 | 0 | 143 | 31.13 |
| 1 | 128 | 15.95 | 1785.53 | 0 | 141 | 42.24 | 15.84 | 1768.46 | 0 | 143 | 42.03 |
| 2 | 64 | 32.22 | 3128.11 | 0 | 141 | 55.91 | 32.08 | 3119.29 | 0 | 148 | 55.84 |
| 3 | 32 | 63.91 | 4124.27 | 0 | 149 | 64.22 | 61.69 | 3829.78 | 0 | 135 | 61.90 |
| 4 | 16 | 126.62 | 68.73 | 103 | 140 | 8.29 | 130.00 | 33.00 | 121 | 146 | 5.74 |
| Tree Size | #Leaves | Ascon-Hash | SHA3-256 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Variance | Mean | Variance | ||
| Small | 126.31 | 68.69 | 130.00 | 33.00 | |
| Compact | 125.95 | 49.05 | 128.50 | 64.83 | |
| Medium | 128.60 | 63.40 | 128.29 | 57.94 | |
| Large | 128.18 | 63.18 | 128.10 | 62.88 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).