note BrowserUk <blockquote><i> but not reasoning for changing the hash algorithm itself -- Sure it is. A strong hash function is harder to attack. </i></blockquote> <p>With respect, that is garbage. The way the original algorithmic complexity attack was constructed, was to simply hash a mess of random strings of a given length and see which one's hashed to the same value. As soon as anyone gets their hands on the release that contains a different hashing function, the "strength of the hashing function" -- a totally meaningless measure in this context -- is completely negated. <p>Only the reliability of the randomised seed provides any protection whatsoever. <blockquote><i> why you would do it on a hash-by-hash basis rather than a per-process basis. -- Concerns over information exposure of key order to an attacker. </i></blockquote> <p>Unfounded (and illogical) concerns. If the "attacker" has sufficient access to be able to determine the per-process seeding, they have sufficient access to have far simpler and more effective attack vectors. <p>Like fitting an anchor to a car or an air brake to a submarine, the extra prophylactic serves no purpose. <blockquote><i> If there is any reluctance it is purely that of me wanting to avoid a long dialog repeating what has already been said elsewhere. </i></blockquote> <p>I see. So we users of this modification shouldn't be concerning our simple selves with the difficult details of this change huh? <p>Would copy/pasting taking so much timeand effort? Even a link to the existing discussion would have sufficed. <p>But fear not, I'm not asking you to argue your case here. I've already heard enough to realise that this is tinkering for it's own sake, rather than justifiable development. <div class="pmsig"><div class="pmsig-171588"> <hr /> <font size=1 > <div>With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'</div> <div>Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.</div> <div>"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". </div> <div>In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. <p align=right> [http://thebottomline.cpaaustralia.com.au/|RIP Neil Armstrong]</p></div> </font> </div></div> 1005122 1007024