Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351073

Re: LOL underestimated

From owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: LOL underestimated
Date 2016-04-20 22:04 +0000
Organization O.W.L.
Message-ID <hgjdi03afa3.441@rooftop.invalid> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <20160420203110.1b2edf85@maxa-pc> <ghdmjbd.lo3@rooftop.invalid> <20160420232012.7027be06@maxa-pc> <ghjdie003.afp4@rooftop.invalid> <21340349-1215-4478-adb6-4950ad82b948@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 4:30:02 PM UTC-5, owl wrote:
>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
>> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> > 
>> >> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
>> >> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >   
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash over the
>> >> >> entire address space (those eight small windows in the vid).
>> >> >>   
>> >> > 
>> >> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
>> >> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a Minute  
>> >> 
>> >> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating collision
>> >> pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that all attacks
>> >> against a hash still require a dictionary of hashes (which is what
>> >> I'm generating).
>> >> 
>> > 
>> > This paper I got earlier, it's about cracking md5 quickly. It should
>> > help your cause ;)
>> > 
>> 
>> Are you sure?  I skimmed it, and it seems to be proof of concept of
>> quickly generating md5 collisions, which just means two data which
>> generate the same hash, which makes md5 unreliable for verifying
>> data integrity.  But here I need to find the unknown original input
>> that was hashed, given only the hash.  Is there another method other
>> than brute force dictionary comparison of hashes to find original
>> input to an md5 hash?  Does this paper describe such a method?
> 
> You can't reverse a hash. MD5 output is only 128-bit, but its inputs can be any length, which means for every hash output K there exists an infinite number of inputs P such that hash(P) = K.

I know it's one-way.  That's why I'm questioning this collision generator
as being applicable to my problem of having a known hash and wanting to 
find the original data that was hashed.  Here I'm making an educated guess
that the original data is an IP address, and I've decided to generate
a hash table of the IPv4 address space, which even though relatively large,
is doable in a couple of months on my machine.

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 15:10 +0000
  Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 16:55 +0000
    Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 17:25 +0000
      Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 18:45 +0000
        Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 18:47 +0000
          Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:05 +0000
            Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-25 19:07 +0000
              Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 21:16 +0000
        Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 20:51 +0200
  Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 19:19 +0200
    Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 17:34 +0000
      Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 20:31 +0200
        Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:13 +0000
          Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:20 +0200
            Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:29 +0000
              Re: LOL underestimated Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 14:33 -0700
                Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:58 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:04 +0000
          Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:25 +0200
            Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:41 +0000
              Re: LOL underestimated Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 23:50 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:06 +0000
                Re: LOL underestimated Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 08:54 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 17:12 +0000
              Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:50 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 23:51 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:59 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:10 +0000
                Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 00:11 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:19 +0000
                Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 00:57 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 00:07 +0000
      Re: LOL underestimated DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 23:17 -0400
        Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 03:49 +0000
          Re: LOL underestimated DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 10:27 -0400
            Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 16:26 +0000

csiph-web