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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351070

Re: LOL underestimated

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
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.

While there is infinite number of variable length inputs there is
limited number of inputs of length n.

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