Advertisement
Interested in hardware, diags, validation, Linux, C, ARM, Microcode and low level programming and blazing networks?
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Why not just use the SHA1 only?Why not just use the SHA1 only?Posted Nov 15, 2008 14:46 UTC (Sat) by jbh (subscriber, #494)In reply to: Why not just use the SHA1 only? by dlang Parent article: /dev/ksm: dynamic memory sharing
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).
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|
||||||||||||