On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 11:04:02AM -0400, Jonathan Yu wrote:
[snip]
> Interesting idea though, using Google to reverse hashes... in that
> case you wouldn't even need to know the algorithm used to hash it!
Erm... not really. There are many hash algorithms that give outputs
with the same length; t
Jonathan Yu writes:
> It's my understanding that the margin by which storing a hashed
> password without a salt is better is related to its length. It's
> harder to calculate/store SHA-512 hashes versus SHA-1, right? I mean,
> takes a lot more time & space to construct rainbow tables, and thus
> co
It's my understanding that the margin by which storing a hashed
password without a salt is better is related to its length. It's
harder to calculate/store SHA-512 hashes versus SHA-1, right? I mean,
takes a lot more time & space to construct rainbow tables, and thus
could be infeasible to generate.
Bill Ward writes:
> I didn't think that a salt was necessary with a one-way hash.
Google makes even the best hash functions reversible for some inputs:
http://www.google.com/search?q=5d41402abc4b2a76b9719d911017c592
http://www.google.com/search?q=aaf4c61ddcc5e8a2dabede0f3b482cd9aea9434d
http://ww
