My guess is that if you could write a hash working the way you say, it
would be vulnerable to all sorts of cryptographic attacks: give up!
I have indeed given up and found other ways to incorporate the hash
while verifying the stream integrity.
On 10/27/2012 06:30 PM, Michael Zintakis wrote:
Maybe a bit daft of me to ask this, but is it possible to calculate a
hash on a stream of bytes where the resulting hash is considered to be
part of that stream?
In other words, lets assume that I have a stream which is, say, 64
bytes long in
On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM, lists li...@rustichelli.net wrote:
By its nature, a hash completely changes if just a bit of the original
content is modified
By design, a cryptographic hash function (on average) changes half the
output bits when a single bit in the input is inverted.
Maybe a bit daft of me to ask this, but is it possible to calculate a
hash on a stream of bytes where the resulting hash is considered to be
part of that stream?
In other words, lets assume that I have a stream which is, say, 64 bytes
long in total, consisting of 48 bytes of payload, plus
Isn't that a little like the guy who committed suicide, cut himself up in
little pieces, and flushed himself down the toilet?
Some checksums are computed such that the checksum is part of the message,
and if all if well, the checksum of the entire message including the
appended sum is 0 or 0x
