Re: Question about hashing algorithms
Date: 26 Aug 2005 21:42:17 GMT
firstname.lastname@example.org (David Wagner) writes:
>>Are any hashing algorithms that are secure for short data and have
>>short signatures? As I understand it, SHA-1, MD5, etc. were pretty
>>much designed to work for any size of data. Sometimes that seems like
>What's wrong with overkill? (a serious question)
>>If I have small bits of data (say, a few kilobytes
>>or so) and I want to verify each chunk with a hash, it seems a little
>>wasteful to require a 160 bit hash that matches up with what might only
>>be 2K of data most of the time.
160 bits = 20 bytes. What is wrong with a 100-1 ratio?
And security relies on length. If you ahve a one bit hash it is trivial to
find collisions and preimages attacks. the longer the hash, the harder,
other things being equal.
- Possible Cause Of NTE_BAD_SIGNATURE?
... XP Pro system and being verified on a Windows XP embedded system. ... SHA1 hash of the entire hard drive contents minus the last sector, ... attempting to verify the hash against the signed hash in the last ...
- Re: Signature verification with capicom
... > sign verify reverse the entire buffer. ... capicom says that the hashes don't match. ... > Iaik sends ... >>with capicom but the hash created from the original file. ...
- Re: hosts.deny vs iptables
... Hash: SHA1 ... Just wanted to verify about the wild cards. ... you'd want to edit the INPUT chain. ...
- Signature verification with capicom
... sign verify reverse the entire buffer. ... capicom says that the hashes don't match. ... Iaik sends ... >with capicom but the hash created from the original file. ...
- Re: Quote of the day
... > Hash: SHA1 ... You need GnuPG to verify this message ...