On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:04:51PM -0700, Harshwardhan Nagaonkar wrote: > Jason Holt wrote: > >On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Josh Coates wrote: > <snip/> > >bunch of other hashes, that was big news. A bunch of people said > >"hey, it's just a collision, we already knew hash functions have > >collisions," but they didn't realize that in a truly secure hash > >function, *we'll never ever see even a single one*. And sure > >enough, people like Kaminsky are showing that > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > <snip/> > > The only formal training I've had in hashes and hash buckets was in > CS235, so this might not be a good question, considering my limited > know-how. > > But I was wondering how you could have a hash function that never > has a single collision?
Jason did not say that a secure hash function is incapable of
producing a single collision. He said that we will never *see* a
collision if the hash function is truly secure.
Mike
.___________________________________________________________________.
Michael A. Halcrow
Security Software Engineer, IBM Linux Technology Center
GnuPG Fingerprint: 05B5 08A8 713A 64C1 D35D 2371 2D3C FDDA 3EB6 601D
"The Computer made me do it."
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
