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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351071

Re: LOL underestimated

From Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: LOL underestimated
Date 2016-04-20 23:59 +0200
Organization albasani.net
Message-ID <20160420235954.361bcf42@maxa-pc> (permalink)
References (4 earlier) <ghdmjbd.lo3@rooftop.invalid> <20160420232546.4804cf6f@maxa-pc> <ghjmbnjc03.are@rooftop.invalid> <20160420235021.4a95a738@maxa-pc> <nf8tf0$f5c$2@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 23:51:39 +0200
Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

> Melzzzzz wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> 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).
> >> >>     
> >> > 
> >> > If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
> >> > solution...  
> >> 
> >> Length of what?
> >> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the described
> >> approach can reveal the original input given only the known hash?
> >>   
> > 
> > look, this algo quickly finds out source of particular hash value.
> > Got it?  
> 
> Yes. For data which has nothing at all to do with the original data.
> Which makes it sort of pointless

If length is known there is finite number of combinations. I really
doubt you can get two different ip addresses for same md5 hash...

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