GHSA-3g92-f9ch-qjcm

### Vulnerability Currently, when hashing, if the number of elements to hash is not a multiple of the rate, `hash_iter` pads by elements of the current state. This means that it is possible to create iterators of different lengths which lead to an identical hashed state. Given a simple example using a `PaddingFreeSponge` with width 8 and rate 4. Start with the zero state: [0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0] Take the first 4 elements to hash and insert into the first 4 elements of the state: [h0, h1, h2, h3, 0, 0, 0, 0] Run the cryptographic permutation on the state: [p00, p10, p20, p30, p40, p50, p60, p70] Take the next 4 elements to hash and insert into the first 4 elements of the state: [h4, h5, h6, h7, p40, p50, p60, p70] Run the cryptographic permutation: [p01, p11, p21, p31, p41, p51, p61, p71] Repeat the above two steps until all elements of the iterator have been consumed. If the number of elements in the iterator is not a multiple of 4 (say there are 10 elements) then, in the final round, the first 2 elements are overwritten and so our final hash would be of: [h8, h9, p21, p31, p41, p51, p61, p71] This means that the iterators over the elements [h0, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, h7, h8, h9] and [h0, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, h7, h8, h9, p21] would lead to the same final state of the hasher. ### Impact The impact of this vulnerability is a little difficult to estimate. It is important to note that, in circumstances where the number of elements to be hashed is known and fixed in advance, (as is the case for most STARKS), the method is collision resistant. This vulnerability only applies if a malicious user is able to manipulate the number of elements to be hashed. That being said, there are theoretically situations where this could allow for an amortising of grinding costs (if a prover can manipulate things to get the same hasher state across multiple proofs). ### Patches The fix comes in two parts. The documentation on the current struct `PaddingFreeSponge` has been i