Karel Gardas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:57:15PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote: >> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:46:28PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote: >> > > > Sorry! That's just my short-cut of the whole problem. As I've >> > > > already written I don't agree fully with Ivan's statements, >> > > > but this does not change anything on the fact that MD5 is >> > > > broken. >> > > >> > > MD5 is not broken. That's a myth. Stop spreading it. >> > >> > Perhaps `MD5 is broken' is not the best description of the problem, but >> > let say `MD5 is not collision free'. > Not being collision-free is a property of all possible hash functions where the hash value is shorter than the hashed value.
>>> Is this better for you? i.e. there is a possibility to find two >>> values which hash to the same hash without using >>> brute force attack. >> >> That is the case for all known hashing algorithms. Uninteresting >> distinction. > I *think* *that* (as opposed to the above) is *not* the case for all known hash algorithms. Andrew, can you elaborate? I *think* you're both right and wrong ;) Rotty -- Andreas Rottmann | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62 The best way to accelerate a Windows machine is at 9.81 m/s^2 _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
