# Re: Complex Theoretical One Way Hash Question

*From*: Matthew Harrison <m.harrisson@xxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:57:53 +1000

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

2. Is it feasible ?

No, as it would allow to create a collision, violating the goal of a

cryptographic hash.

You must have misunderstood what I was asking ... I'm not asking for a hash that creates the same result from two different images.

I'm looking at creating a one way hash as normal (with minimal collisions), but ensuring that the resulting hash result is that of the modified image.

That is - the resulting hash will not be that of the unmodified image.

hehe... spammers have automated such replacements since years! ;-D

However - I've got stuff at this end that detects them ... (see the e-mail address above).

--

Pinging self [127.0.0.1] with 32 bites of banana cake:

Ping statistics for 127.0.0.1:

Slices: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss),

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Complex Theoretical One Way Hash Question***From:*Unruh

**Re: Complex Theoretical One Way Hash Question***From:*Sebastian Gottschalk

**Re: Complex Theoretical One Way Hash Question***From:*ink

**References**:**Complex Theoretical One Way Hash Question***From:*Matthew Harrison

**Re: Complex Theoretical One Way Hash Question***From:*Sebastian Gottschalk

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Electronic RNG not enough secure for OTP?** - Next by Date:
**Re: Cryptographic strength in Wireless Alarm Systems?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Complex Theoretical One Way Hash Question** - Next by thread:
**Re: Complex Theoretical One Way Hash Question** - Index(es):