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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351061

Re: LOL underestimated

From owl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: LOL underestimated
Date 2016-04-20 21:29 +0000
Organization O.W.L.
Message-ID <ghjdie003.afp4@rooftop.invalid> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <20160420191915.3cf2c768@maxa-pc> <fhjgda03.af3@rooftop.invalid> <20160420203110.1b2edf85@maxa-pc> <ghdmjbd.lo3@rooftop.invalid> <20160420232012.7027be06@maxa-pc>

Show all headers | View raw

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).
>> 
> 
> This paper I got earlier, it's about cracking md5 quickly. It should
> help your cause ;)
> 

Are you sure?  I skimmed it, and it seems to be proof of concept of
quickly generating md5 collisions, which just means two data which
generate the same hash, which makes md5 unreliable for verifying
data integrity.  But here I need to find the unknown original input
that was hashed, given only the hash.  Is there another method other
than brute force dictionary comparison of hashes to find original
input to an md5 hash?  Does this paper describe such a method?

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