Why would I hash files with MD4?

The only legitimate reason to use MD4 for file hashing today is compatibility with legacy systems that cannot be upgraded. The eDonkey2000 and eMule peer-to-peer file sharing networks use MD4 hashes to identify and verify shared files. Some very old backup systems, legacy database deduplication tools, or ancient software distribution systems may use MD4 checksums. Certain legacy NTLM-related file verification tools use MD4. Security researchers may need to generate MD4 hashes to analyze old malware, verify historical data, or maintain compatibility with archived systems. However, MD4 should never be used for security purposes. It is cryptographically broken with collision attacks that take less than one second on modern hardware. Attackers can trivially create fake files with the same MD4 hash as legitimate ones, completely bypassing integrity verification. If you are designing any new system or have the ability to upgrade legacy systems, use SHA-256, SHA-3, or BLAKE3 instead. These provide strong collision resistance and are the industry standard for secure file verification. MD4 exists in this tool purely for compatibility with systems built decades ago when cryptographic knowledge was less advanced. For all new applications, modern hash functions provide dramatically better security with similar or better performance.

Is MD4 safe for file integrity verification?

No, MD4 is not safe for file integrity verification against malicious tampering. While MD4 can detect accidental file corruption from disk errors or network transmission problems, it provides zero protection against intentional modification. Attackers can use collision attacks to create modified files that produce the same MD4 hash as the original, completely bypassing integrity checks. These collision attacks are computationally trivial on modern hardware, taking less than one second to generate. This means an attacker could replace a legitimate file with malware, modify a document to change its content, alter configuration files to compromise systems, or inject backdoors into software, all while maintaining the same MD4 checksum. For non-security checksums where you only need to detect accidental corruption, CRC32 or Adler32 are faster than MD4 and explicitly designed for error detection. For security-critical integrity verification where you need protection against malicious tampering, use SHA-256, SHA-3, or BLAKE3. These provide strong collision resistance and are computationally infeasible to attack with current technology. SHA-256 is the industry standard used by software distribution, code signing, blockchain, and secure systems worldwide. If you receive MD4 checksums from a legacy system, you can verify them but understand they provide only basic corruption detection, not security.

What legacy systems use MD4 for files?

The most notable legacy systems using MD4 for file hashing are the eDonkey2000 and eMule peer-to-peer file sharing networks, which generate MD4 hashes for file identification and verification. These networks were popular in the early 2000s and some users still operate them, requiring MD4 compatibility. Windows NTLM authentication uses MD4 for password hashing, and some related file verification tools may use MD4. Very old backup and archival systems from the 1990s and early 2000s may use MD4 checksums for detecting corrupted archives. Some legacy database systems used MD4 for deduplication by hashing file content to identify duplicates. Ancient software distribution systems might provide MD4 checksums alongside downloads, though most have migrated to SHA-256. Certain proprietary legacy applications from the pre-SHA-2 era may use MD4 for file tracking or integrity checking. Security research tools analyzing historical data, old malware samples, or archived systems may need MD4 for compatibility. However, all these uses represent outdated technology. Modern equivalents of these systems use SHA-256 or stronger hash functions. If you are maintaining a legacy system that uses MD4, plan a migration to SHA-256 as soon as possible. The continued use of MD4 represents a significant security vulnerability that should be remediated.

Can MD4 detect file tampering?

MD4 can detect accidental file changes from corruption, but it cannot reliably detect intentional tampering by attackers. When a file is corrupted by disk errors, network transmission problems, or software bugs, the MD4 hash will change, allowing you to detect the corruption. However, if an attacker deliberately modifies a file, they can use collision attacks to ensure the modified file has the same MD4 hash as the original. These collision attacks are computationally trivial, taking less than one second on modern hardware. This means MD4 provides zero security against malicious tampering. An attacker with access to a file could modify its contents, inject malware, change critical data, or alter configurations while maintaining the same MD4 checksum. For detecting malicious tampering, you need a cryptographically secure hash function where collision attacks are computationally infeasible. Use SHA-256 (128-bit collision resistance), SHA-512 (256-bit collision resistance), or BLAKE3 for secure tamper detection. These algorithms make it essentially impossible for attackers to create modified files with matching hashes. Additionally, for maximum security, use digital signatures with public key cryptography (RSA, ECDSA), which provide both integrity and authenticity verification. MD4 is only suitable for detecting accidental corruption in non-security contexts. For any application where tampering is a concern, MD4 is completely inadequate and should be replaced with modern cryptographic primitives.

How do MD4 collisions affect file verification?

MD4 collisions completely undermine file verification security. A collision occurs when two different files produce the same MD4 hash. In a cryptographically secure hash function, collisions should be computationally infeasible to find. However, MD4 is broken, and attackers can generate collision pairs in less than one second using differential cryptanalysis techniques. This has severe consequences for file verification. If a system uses MD4 to verify file integrity, an attacker can create a malicious file that has the same MD4 hash as a legitimate file. The verification system will accept the malicious file as genuine because the hashes match, despite the content being completely different. This enables attacks such as distributing malware that passes MD4 checksum verification, creating fake software updates that appear legitimate, modifying configuration files while maintaining the same hash, forging documents or data files that pass integrity checks, and bypassing security systems that rely on MD4 hash comparison. Real-world examples include the use of collision attacks against MD5 (MD4's successor, also broken) to forge SSL certificates and create malicious files. MD4 is even weaker than MD5, making attacks easier. The practical impact is that MD4 file verification provides no security guarantee against intentional tampering. It only detects accidental corruption. For secure file verification, use SHA-256 or stronger algorithms where collision attacks require computational resources far beyond what is feasible with current or foreseeable technology.

Should I verify downloads with MD4 checksums?

Only verify downloads with MD4 if the publisher provides only MD4 checksums and you need to check for accidental corruption during download. However, understand that MD4 verification provides no security against malicious tampering. If an attacker compromises the download server or intercepts your connection, they can provide modified files with matching MD4 checksums using trivial collision attacks. MD4 verification will not detect malicious modifications, only accidental corruption from network errors or disk problems. For security-critical downloads like operating systems, security software, development tools, or any application where integrity matters, demand SHA-256 checksums at minimum. Most reputable publishers have migrated to SHA-256 or stronger hash functions. If a publisher only provides MD4 checksums in modern times, this is a red flag indicating outdated security practices. Consider whether the source is trustworthy and whether you should use alternative sources with proper security. For maximum download security, verify digital signatures using GPG or code signing certificates, which provide both integrity and authenticity guarantees. Digital signatures prove the file came from the claimed publisher and has not been modified, which checksums alone cannot guarantee. If you must verify MD4 checksums from legacy sources, do so to catch corruption, but do not rely on MD4 for security. Treat MD4-only verification as equivalent to no security verification at all when it comes to protecting against malicious tampering.

What is the eDonkey2000 connection to MD4?

eDonkey2000 was a popular peer-to-peer file sharing network launched in 2000 that used MD4 hashes for file identification and verification. When users shared files on the eDonkey network, the software calculated MD4 hashes of the file content to create unique file identifiers. These MD4 hashes allowed the network to identify files regardless of filename, detect duplicate files, verify file integrity after download, and enable resumable downloads by matching file chunks. The eMule client, an open-source alternative to eDonkey2000, also adopted MD4 for compatibility. The choice of MD4 in 2000 was based on its speed and the fact that collision attacks were not widely known or practical at the time. However, as cryptographic research advanced, MD4's weaknesses became clear. By the mid-2000s, collision attacks against MD4 were trivial, but the eDonkey/eMule ecosystem could not easily migrate to new hash functions without breaking compatibility with existing clients and shared files. The networks gradually declined in popularity, but some users still operate eMule and other eDonkey-compatible clients, maintaining the need for MD4 compatibility. Modern file sharing systems and content distribution networks use SHA-256 or stronger hashes for file identification. The eDonkey use case is essentially the only reason anyone needs to generate MD4 file hashes today, and only for compatibility with this legacy network. For all new file sharing or distribution systems, use SHA-256, SHA-3, or BLAKE3.

MD4 vs SHA-256 for file hashing - which should I use?

Always use SHA-256 for file hashing unless you specifically need MD4 for legacy system compatibility. SHA-256 is cryptographically secure with 128-bit collision resistance and no known practical attacks. MD4 is completely broken with collision attacks taking less than one second. SHA-256 provides strong protection against malicious file tampering, while MD4 provides none. Both algorithms have similar performance on modern hardware, so there is no speed advantage to using the insecure MD4. SHA-256 is the industry standard used by Bitcoin, SSL certificates, software distribution, code signing, and security systems worldwide. It is approved by NIST and recommended by security experts. SHA-256 hashes are 64 hexadecimal characters (256 bits), while MD4 hashes are 32 hexadecimal characters (128 bits). The longer SHA-256 hash provides stronger collision resistance and better security margins. For file integrity verification, duplicate detection, content-addressable storage, download verification, or any application requiring trust in the hash, use SHA-256. The only reason to use MD4 is compatibility with legacy systems like eDonkey2000 file sharing or old NTLM-related tools that cannot be upgraded. If you are designing any new system, choosing a hash function for a new application, or have the ability to migrate legacy systems, choose SHA-256 or stronger (SHA-512, SHA-3, BLAKE3). Never use MD4 for security purposes. Treat MD4 as a deprecated legacy algorithm that exists only for backward compatibility, similar to how HTTPS has deprecated SSL 2.0 and SSL 3.0.

Can attackers create fake files with the same MD4 hash?

Yes, attackers can easily create fake files with the same MD4 hash as legitimate files using collision attacks. These attacks exploit mathematical weaknesses in MD4's compression function to construct file pairs that produce identical hashes. Modern collision attacks on MD4 take less than one second on consumer hardware, making them trivially easy for attackers. The attacker uses differential cryptanalysis techniques to carefully craft message differences that cancel out through MD4's three rounds of operations. This allows them to create two completely different files with the same 128-bit hash value. The practical implications are severe. An attacker could take a legitimate software installer, create a malicious version containing malware, and use collision attacks to ensure both files have the same MD4 hash. Users verifying the MD4 checksum would accept the malicious file as legitimate. Similarly, attackers could modify documents, configuration files, or data files while maintaining identical MD4 hashes, bypassing integrity verification systems. This is not a theoretical attack—the cryptanalysis techniques are published, and implementations are available. For comparison, SHA-256 collision attacks require approximately 2^128 operations, which is computationally infeasible with current or foreseeable technology. Breaking SHA-256 collision resistance would require resources far beyond what any attacker possesses. This fundamental difference in security is why SHA-256 is trusted for security applications while MD4 is not. If a system relies on MD4 for file verification, it is vulnerable to trivial forgery attacks and should be migrated to SHA-256 immediately.

What hash function should I use instead of MD4 for files?

For modern file hashing, use SHA-256 as the industry standard. SHA-256 provides strong 128-bit collision resistance, excellent performance on modern hardware, and universal compatibility across all platforms and programming languages. It is approved by NIST, used in Bitcoin, SSL certificates, and trusted by security experts worldwide. SHA-256 produces 64-character hexadecimal hashes (256 bits), providing strong security with reasonable hash size. For maximum security requirements, use SHA-512 (128-character hashes, 256-bit collision resistance) or SHA-3 (Keccak), which offers similar security with a completely different internal design for defense in depth. For highest performance with strong security, use BLAKE3, which is significantly faster than SHA-256 while providing equivalent collision resistance. BLAKE3 can hash files at multiple gigabytes per second on modern CPUs and is ideal for applications requiring maximum throughput. For non-cryptographic checksums where you only need to detect accidental corruption (not malicious tampering), use CRC32 or Adler32, which are optimized for error detection and faster than MD4. For legacy systems where you must support existing MD4 hashes for compatibility, compute both MD4 (for legacy verification) and SHA-256 (for security) during a transition period. Document the migration plan and set a deadline for deprecating MD4. Never use MD4 for new applications or systems. The performance difference between MD4 and SHA-256 is negligible on modern hardware, so there is no justification for accepting MD4's broken security. Choose SHA-256 for the best balance of security, performance, and compatibility in virtually all file hashing scenarios.

File to MD4 Hash

Generate MD4 hashes for any file. MD4 is a broken legacy hash function. Use only for compatibility with old systems like eDonkey2000 or legacy NTLM.

⚠️ CRITICAL WARNING: MD4 is cryptographically BROKEN. Collision attacks take less than 1 second. Do NOT use for file integrity verification against tampering. Only for legacy compatibility. Use SHA-256 or BLAKE3 for secure file verification.

TextFile

Upload File

Drag and drop a file here, or click to browse

Select File

Other hashing tools

MD4 Hash•File to SHA256 (Secure)•File to BLAKE3 (Secure)