# Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm

*From*: bmearns <mearns.b@xxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:38:36 -0700 (PDT)

On Apr 26, 1:59 pm, "J.D." <degolyer...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Apr 26, 1:41 pm, bmearns <mearn...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If

a smaller deck is used, then this sort of vulnerability would fade

much more quickly, right?

Intuitively it seems like that should be the case, though I don't have

a proof either one way or the other.

Yes, unfortunately formal (or even informal) proofs for cryptographic

algorithms are nothing like my strong point. I'll see what sort of

testing I can come up with for it.

Thanks, again.

-Brian

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm***From:*Maaartin

**References**:**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm***From:*bmearns

**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm***From:*J.D.

**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm***From:*bmearns

**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm***From:*J.D.

- Prev by Date:
**bad client public DH value** - Next by Date:
**Re: Antispam strategies** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm** - Next by thread:
**Re: Call for review: Hashing by hand algorithm** - Index(es):