| |||||||||||||
Why not just use the SHA1 only?Why not just use the SHA1 only?Posted Nov 15, 2008 8:25 UTC (Sat) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: Why not just use the SHA1 only? by nevets Parent article: /dev/ksm: dynamic memory sharing
actually the statement is that you can't deliberatly come up with a conflicting sha1.
there are databases what hold the sha1 of various files, and there are a lot of known conflicts in them
(Log in to post comments)
Why not just use the SHA1 only? Posted Nov 15, 2008 14:46 UTC (Sat) by jbh (subscriber, #494) [Link]
Are you sure? According to wikipedia, none have been found (although it is known that it can be found with complexity 2^63, less than the expected 2^80).
Why not just use the SHA1 only? Posted Nov 15, 2008 14:56 UTC (Sat) by jbh (subscriber, #494) [Link]
Just to be clear: If you restrict yourself to "collision-prone" SHA1s, there's a 1/2^63 chance of conflict. With normal (random) SHA1s, the chance is 1/2^80. Deliberately creating a conflict with a given SHA1 (second preimage attack) is still 1/2^160, and the chance of that second preimage being non-gibberish substantially lower.
|
|||||||||||||