Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #19013
| From | Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Hash stability |
| Date | 2012-01-15 18:20 +0100 |
| References | (3 earlier) <jeu8t4$2kc$1@dough.gmane.org> <4F12BC8A.9040205@modelnine.org> <jeugdp$e1b$1@dough.gmane.org> <4F12F9D8.5080904@modelnine.org> <CAPTjJmo3TX=Am9SZ_=sxKN65KXLywQRp9Ag-r=mH5JgEiUJxJA@mail.gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.4777.1326648019.27778.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
Chris Angelico, 15.01.2012 17:13: > Of course, it's still dodgy to depend on the stability of something > that isn't proclaimed stable, and would be far better to use some > other hashing algorithm (MD5 or SHA for uberreliability). I've seen things like MD5 or SHA* being used quite commonly for file caches (or file storage in general, e.g. for related files referenced in a text document). Given that these algorithms are right there in the stdlib, I find them a rather obvious choice. However, note that they may also be subject to complexity attacks at some point, although likely requiring substantially more input data. In the specific case of a cache, an attacker may only need an arbitrary set of colliding hashes. Those can be calculated in advance for a given hash function. For example, Wikipedia currently presents MD5 with a collision complexity of ~2^20, that sounds a bit weak. Something like SHA256 should be substantially more robust. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function#Cryptographic_hash_algorithms Stefan
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Hash stability Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2012-01-14 04:42 +0000
Re: Hash stability Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2012-01-14 10:46 +0100
Re: Hash stability Heiko Wundram <modelnine@modelnine.org> - 2012-01-14 23:45 +0100
Re: Hash stability Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-15 11:36 +1100
Re: Hash stability Bryan <bryanjugglercryptographer@yahoo.com> - 2012-01-15 04:03 -0800
Re: Hash stability Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-15 23:21 +1100
Re: Hash stability Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2012-01-14 21:26 -0500
Re: Hash stability Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2012-01-14 23:07 -0500
Re: Hash stability Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> - 2012-01-15 11:13 +0100
Re: Hash stability Heiko Wundram <modelnine@modelnine.org> - 2012-01-15 12:46 +0100
Re: Hash stability Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2012-01-15 13:22 +0100
Re: Hash stability Heiko Wundram <modelnine@modelnine.org> - 2012-01-15 17:07 +0100
Re: Hash stability Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2012-01-16 03:13 +1100
Re: Hash stability Heiko Wundram <modelnine@modelnine.org> - 2012-01-15 17:51 +0100
Re: Hash stability Stefan Behnel <stefan_ml@behnel.de> - 2012-01-15 18:20 +0100
Re: Hash stability Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2012-01-16 09:18 +0100
Re: Hash stability Christian Heimes <lists@cheimes.de> - 2012-01-16 09:44 +0100
Re: Hash stability Heiko Wundram <modelnine@modelnine.org> - 2012-01-16 10:15 +0100
csiph-web