Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351079
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: LOL underestimated |
| Date | 2016-04-20 22:19 +0000 |
| Organization | O.W.L. |
| Message-ID | <hjgda0.jkga9@rooftop.invalid> (permalink) |
| References | (7 earlier) <20160420235021.4a95a738@maxa-pc> <nf8tf0$f5c$2@dont-email.me> <20160420235954.361bcf42@maxa-pc> <ghjdi03.a0h3b4428@rooftop.invalid> <20160421001155.68313d39@maxa-pc> |
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". The definition of a collision is that the same hash is generated by two different inputs. I'm not trying to be difficult here, Melzzzzz. I just don't understand how collision generation is relevant to the problem.
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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