Re: [OT] Redundancy eliminating file systems, breaking MD5, donating money to OSDL

[Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@citd.de>]

On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 01:12:59AM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > There is one fundemental braino in the discussion.
> > 
> > Only HALF the bits are for preventing "accidental" collisions. (The
> > "birthday" thing). The rest is for preventing to "brute force" an input
> > that produces the same MD5.(*)
> > 
> > So MD5 has only 2**64 Bits against accidental collsions
> > Btw. I already had (a/the) MD5 collision(*2) in my life.
> > 
> > So you'd need SHA256 or SHA512 to be "really sure(tm)".
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > *: AFAIR i read this in the specs of SHA1 (160 bits). So i guess this is
> > also true for MD5.
> > 
> > *2: I had a direcory of about 1,5 Million images and "md5sum"med them to
> > eliminate doubles. The Log-file, at one point, had the same md5sum as
> > one of the pictures.
> 
> Do you have a copy? I believe *many* people would like to see that
> one.

Unfortunatly not, and reconstruction is impossibel(tm). "Back then(more
than half a year ago)" i didn't see that as important.




Bis denn

-- 
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as 
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, 
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.