Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Re^7: On showing the weakness in the MD5 digest function and getting bitten by scalar context

by halley (Prior)
on Aug 30, 2004 at 14:00 UTC ( #386919=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^6: On showing the weakness in the MD5 digest function and getting bitten by scalar context
in thread On showing the weakness in the MD5 digest function and getting bitten by scalar context

People are rat-holing on the "I can make two random-data chunks which have the same MD5 hash." Sure, that's an interesting data point.

But my point is (and has been) that the complexity is far higher if you want to (1) engineer a new data stream which will match an original data stream's hash, while (2) maintaining a plausible protocol and formatting.

  • Forge a new JPEG image (same hash as the original image) which has no broken data fields.
  • Forge a new tarball which can still be decompressed.
  • Forge a new text file without using random line noise or dictionary gibberish.

If you can do that, even once, THEN I will be impressed and reconsider the value of MD5's distribution fingerprinting.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]


Comment on Re^7: On showing the weakness in the MD5 digest function and getting bitten by scalar context

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://386919]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (4)
As of 2014-08-01 05:50 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (256 votes), past polls