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 The attack is still only an unpublished paper and has not yet been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The attack is still only an unpublished paper and has not yet been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
10 matches
Mail list logo
