Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351090

Re: LOL underestimated

From	owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Newsgroups	comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject	Re: LOL underestimated
Date	2016-04-21 00:07 +0000
Organization	O.W.L.
Message-ID	<fhgjdk903.af@rooftop.invalid> (permalink)
References	(9 earlier) <20160420235954.361bcf42@maxa-pc> <ghjdi03.a0h3b4428@rooftop.invalid> <20160421001155.68313d39@maxa-pc> <hjgda0.jkga9@rooftop.invalid> <20160421005714.43d640ba@maxa-pc>

Show all headers | View raw

Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
> 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...


A collision with what?


> This algo is good for cracking md5 hashed passwords, it's good for your
> problem as well...
>> 
> 

How does it do that without a dictionary?

I still don't understand how a collision helps.
IOW, even if "blah" and "foo" both collide producing the same hash,
how does knowing only the hash tell me anything?

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