One-way hash functions are supposed to have two properties. One, they're one way. This means that it is easy to take a message and compute the hash value, but it's impossible to take a hash value and recreate the original message. (By "impossible" I mean "can't be done in any reasonable amount of time.") Two, they're collision free. This means that it is impossible to find two messages that hash to the same hash value. The cryptographic reasoning behind these two properties is subtle, and I invite curious readers to learn more in my book Applied Cryptography.
If I'm reading this right, then he's saying 1. The hashing function must be 1-to-1 and onto 2. The hashing function cannot be invertible
Slashdot Mirror
It's not illegal. It's a violation of the terms.
Censoring blogs makes about as much sense as censoring postal mail.
n/t
Actually, I wrote it.
Flame me some more, too, jackass.
I think we ALL saw that coming.
That's up there with explaining why I should have seen my wife *not* coming.
I bet that could have explained the sensing of the tsunami, too.
Now we'll never know.
It will not you freaking moron!
Let me be the first to say it. I love getting the jump on my ideological opponents.
One-way hash functions are supposed to have two properties. One, they're one way. This means that it is easy to take a message and compute the hash value, but it's impossible to take a hash value and recreate the original message. (By "impossible" I mean "can't be done in any reasonable amount of time.") Two, they're collision free. This means that it is impossible to find two messages that hash to the same hash value. The cryptographic reasoning behind these two properties is subtle, and I invite curious readers to learn more in my book Applied Cryptography.
If I'm reading this right, then he's saying
1. The hashing function must be 1-to-1 and onto
2. The hashing function cannot be invertible
How is this possible?
If you are still talking about me, I live mostly in Windows. But I also realize that security is more about policy than default settings.
My bad. It's a penis-measuring contest.
And how would you make updates?
... another pissing match.
That doesn't mean what he said isn't true. He's absolutely correct.
How many significant figures do you need? I've never heard of fractional people.
If Kerry were in office, the North Koreans would be selling Longhorn by now.
If it weren't for Bush outsourcing all the IT jobs, nobody would NEED a server in their travel bag!
If Bush and Michael Powell hadn't ruined the telecom industry, this never would have happened.
Does anyone else find it too much of a coincidence that this happened while Bush was in office?
They should know that smell quite well.
It's not like they developed nukes and got the technology under Clinton's watch.
That's what I'm waiting for.