On Fri, 2009-04-24 at 15:21 -0700, Russ Weeks wrote: > Oscar, your point is well-taken re. the monotonic increase of the > timestamp. I guess the timestamp+random data key would have to be run > through ie. MD5 to make it suitable for consistent hashing, which adds > another layer of complexity to the collision analysis.
I would just run the timestamp through a block cipher in ECB mode. That's still more complex than just a plain timestamp, but I suspect a little less than just MD5. You don't even need a very secure cipher for this. I'm not sure which ones have a 64 bit block size, but just pick one of those that's not laughably bad and you should be fine. Don't use a 128-bit block cipher and then chop out 64 bits. Then you've just created a situation that's statistically distinct from any that have already been analyzed in this thread. Have fun (if at all possible), -- A word is nothing more or less than the series of historical connotations given to it. That's HOW we derive meaning, and to claim that there is an arbitrary meaning of words above and beyond the way people use them is a blatant misunderstanding of the nature of language. -- Anonymous blogger -- Eric Hopper (hop...@omnifarious.org http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper)--
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list p2p-hackers@lists.zooko.com http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
