Reversible hash function?

Solution 1:

None of the answers provided seemed particularly useful, given the question. I had the same problem, needing a simple, reversible hash for not-security purposes, and decided to go with bit relocation. It's simple, it's fast, and it doesn't require knowing anything about boolean maths or crypo algorithms or anything else that requires actual thinking.

The simplest would probably be to just move half the bits left, and the other half right:

def hash(n):
  return ((0x0000FFFF & n)<<16) + ((0xFFFF0000 & n)>>16)

This is reversible, in that hash(hash(n)) = n, and has non-sequential pairs {n,m}, n < m, where hash(m) < hash(n).

To get a less sequential looking implementation, you might also want to consider an interlace reordering from [msb,z,...,a,lsb] to [msb,lsb,z,a,...] or [lsb,msb,a,z,...] or any other relocation you feel gives an appropriately non-sequential sequence for the numbers you deal with, or even add a XOR on top of that to make it look even less sequential.

(The above function is safe for numbers that fit in 32 bits, larger numbers are guaranteed to cause collisions and would need some more bit mask coverage to prevent problems. That said, 32 bits is usually enough for any non-security uid).

Also have a look at the multiplicative inverse answer given by Andy Hayden, below.

Solution 2:

Another simple solution is to use multiplicative inverses (see Eri Clippert's blog):

we showed how you can take any two coprime positive integers x and m and compute a third positive integer y with the property that (x * y) % m == 1, and therefore that (x * z * y) % m == z % m for any positive integer z. That is, there always exists a “multiplicative inverse”, that “undoes” the results of multiplying by x modulo m.

We take a large number e.g. 4000000000 and a large co-prime number e.g. 387420489:

def rhash(n):
    return n * 387420489 % 4000000000

>>> rhash(12)
649045868

We first calculate the multiplicative inverse with modinv which turns out to be 3513180409:

>>> 3513180409 * 387420489 % 4000000000
1

Now, we can define the inverse:

def un_rhash(h):
    return h * 3513180409 % 4000000000

>>> un_rhash(649045868)  # un_rhash(rhash(12))
12

Note: This answer is fast to compute and works for numbers up to 4000000000, if you need to handle larger numbers choose a sufficiently large number (and another co-prime).

You may want to do this with hexidecimal (to pack the int):

def rhash(n):
    return "%08x" % (n * 387420489 % 4000000000)

>>> rhash(12)
'26afa76c'

def un_rhash(h):
    return int(h, 16) * 3513180409 % 4000000000

>>> un_rhash('26afa76c')  # un_rhash(rhash(12))
12

If you choose a relatively large co-prime then this will seem random, be non-sequential and also be quick to calculate.

Solution 3:

What you are asking for is encryption. A block cipher in its basic mode of operation, ECB, reversibly maps a input block onto an output block of the same size. The input and output blocks can be interpreted as numbers.

For example, AES is a 128 bit block cipher, so it maps an input 128 bit number onto an output 128 bit number. If 128 bits is good enough for your purposes, then you can simply pad your input number out to 128 bits, transform that single block with AES, then format the output as a 128 bit number.

If 128 bits is too large, you could use a 64 bit block cipher, like 3DES, IDEA or Blowfish.

ECB mode is considered weak, but its weakness is the constraint that you have postulated as a requirement (namely, that the mapping be "deterministic"). This is a weakness, because once an attacker has observed that 123 maps to 9874362483910978, from then on whenever she sees the latter number, she knows the plaintext was 123. An attacker can perform frequency analysis and/or build up a dictionary of known plaintext/ciphertext pairs.

Solution 4:

Basically, you are looking for 2 way encryption, and one that probably uses a salt.

You have a number of choices:

1. TripleDES
2. AES

Here is an example:" Simple insecure two-way "obfuscation" for C#

What language are you looking at? If .NET then look at the encryption namespace for some ideas.