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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351078

Re: LOL underestimated

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:10:12 +0000 (UTC)
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > 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...
> >   
> 
> Which means that to derive an IP address knowing only its hash, it
> becomes necessary to generate hashes for all possible IP addresses
> for comparison with the given hash, right?
> 

No, search for collisions of particular length. I didn't look up
program but it is only useful with known source length, so I guess if
you can limit solution on this algorihtm you can quickly find you ip
address.

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