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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351077

Re: LOL underestimated

From owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: LOL underestimated
Date 2016-04-20 22:10 +0000
Organization O.W.L.
Message-ID <ghjdi03.a0h3b4428@rooftop.invalid> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <20160420232546.4804cf6f@maxa-pc> <ghjmbnjc03.are@rooftop.invalid> <20160420235021.4a95a738@maxa-pc> <nf8tf0$f5c$2@dont-email.me> <20160420235954.361bcf42@maxa-pc>

Show all headers | View raw

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?

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