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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351083

Re: LOL underestimated

From Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: LOL underestimated
Date 2016-04-21 00:57 +0200
Organization albasani.net
Message-ID <20160421005714.43d640ba@maxa-pc> (permalink)
References (8 earlier) <nf8tf0$f5c$2@dont-email.me> <20160420235954.361bcf42@maxa-pc> <ghjdi03.a0h3b4428@rooftop.invalid> <20160421001155.68313d39@maxa-pc> <hjgda0.jkga9@rooftop.invalid>

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:19:04 +0000 (UTC)
owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >   
> 
> Isn't that a contradiction of what you just said?  "I really doubt
> that you can get two different ip addresses for the same md5 hash".

No it means when you find one collision you found solution...
This algo is good for cracking md5 hashed passwords, it's good for your
problem as well...
>

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