I hold my breath for weeks at a time, just incase something like this
happens! I thought I was the only one!
On 4/12/05, Theodore Ts'o <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So past a certain point, there is a probability that all of molecules
> of oxygen in the room will suddenly migrate outdoors, and you
On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 01:30 -0700, Andy Isaacson wrote:
> In particular, your defense here is specious. I agree that second
> preimage is an unmanagably large problem for SHA1 for the forseeable
> future (say, 8 years out), but collision results almost always result in
> partially-controlled attac
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:35:49PM +0200, Eric Rannaud wrote:
> Simply put, the best known attack of SHA-1 takes 2^69 hash operations.
> ( http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html )
> The attack is still only an unpublished paper and has not yet been
> implemented. An attack i
Simply put, the best known attack of SHA-1 takes 2^69 hash operations.
( http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html )
The attack is still only an unpublished paper and has not yet been
implemented. An attack is: you try as hard as you can to find a collision
between two arbitra
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:40:21AM +0200, Pedro Larroy wrote:
>
> I had a quick look at the source of GIT tonight, I'd like to warn you
> about the use of hash functions as content indexers.
>
> As probably you are aware, hash functions such as SHA-1 are surjective not
> bijective (1-to-1 map), s
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:40:21AM CEST, I got a letter
where Pedro Larroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
Hi
Hello,
I had a quick look at the source of GIT tonight, I'd like to warn you
about the use of hash functions as content indexers.
As
Magnus Damm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 4/12/05, Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> (iv) You fail to propose a better solution.
>
> I would feel safer with back end storage filenames based on email and
> mtime together with an optional hash lookup that turns collisions into
> worse per
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:51:39AM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:40:21AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Pedro Larroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
[snip...]
> (iii) Your argument against comparing with the probability of a hardware
> error does not make sens
On 4/12/05, Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (iv) You fail to propose a better solution.
I would feel safer with back end storage filenames based on email and
mtime together with an optional hash lookup that turns collisions into
worse performance. But that's just me.
/ magnus
-
To unsub
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 12:40:21AM CEST, I got a letter
where Pedro Larroy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> Hi
Hello,
> I had a quick look at the source of GIT tonight, I'd like to warn you
> about the use of hash functions as content indexers.
>
> As probably you are aware, has
Hi
I had a quick look at the source of GIT tonight, I'd like to warn you
about the use of hash functions as content indexers.
As probably you are aware, hash functions such as SHA-1 are surjective not
bijective (1-to-1 map), so they have collisions. Here one can argue
about the low probability of
11 matches
Mail list logo
