Re: SHA-1 question
From: Paul Rubin (//phr.cx_at_NOSPAM.invalid)
Date: 03/11/04
- Next message: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: P, NP and coNP"
- Previous message: RAMCable: "Re: I have been waiting my divorcce papers from America since March, 2000 and I have not received these yet ... I am not an American .."
- In reply to: Gregory G Rose: "Re: SHA-1 question"
- Next in thread: Gregory G Rose: "Re: SHA-1 question"
- Reply: Gregory G Rose: "Re: SHA-1 question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 10 Mar 2004 18:32:21 -0800
ggr@qualcomm.com (Gregory G Rose) writes:
> No? I find that very surprising. Given that there
> are essentially an infinite number of possible
> inputs, this would imply that something about the
> compression function makes particular outputs not
> only unlikely, but impossible. I'm unaware of any
> such result. Can you give pointers?
Oops, I misread the question. However, there aren't an infinite
number of possible inputs to the compression function. The total
number of possible inputs is 2**(512+160) which comes from the 512 bit
block size plus the 160 bits of chaining variables. These 512+160
bits uniquely determine the output. Yes, it's likely that all outputs
are covered. If the input is only 160 bits though (the part that I
mis-read), it's likely that some outputs don't occur.
- Next message: newstome_at_comcast.net: "Re: P, NP and coNP"
- Previous message: RAMCable: "Re: I have been waiting my divorcce papers from America since March, 2000 and I have not received these yet ... I am not an American .."
- In reply to: Gregory G Rose: "Re: SHA-1 question"
- Next in thread: Gregory G Rose: "Re: SHA-1 question"
- Reply: Gregory G Rose: "Re: SHA-1 question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
