[quote=“dobenour, post:19, topic:4138, full:true”] @briansmith please check this, but I think that incrementing the seed to SipHash (not the key) would solve the problem, inasmuch as as SipHash is considered to be a strong PRF (pseudorandom function) and that is not affected by any of these attacks. Since SipHash is a PRF, changing even one bit of the input completely changes the output. By “seed”, I mean the common prefix that is used by all hasher invocations.[/quote]
It seems strange to me to add this extra complexity to every single hash table, just in case merges another hash table with attacker-controlled contents into it. I’m curious what other implementations do or don’t do to avoid this.