Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 17:05:12 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: raw-sha1_li On 2012-06-26 12:12, Andries E. Brouwer wrote: >> In this format, we 'could' remove the raw-sha1_LI, and simply change >> raw-sha1 to behave like this. > > There are two entirely different hashes: > 1. raw-sha1 > 2. raw-sha1 followed by zeroing the first 20 bits > > They should have different names since they differ. > For example, the linkedin dump contains the hashes > > a96807e7bd710592ee36264a72d6aa35c2d165f9 > 000007e7bd710592ee36264a72d6aa35c2d165f9 > > Now sunshine09 has sha1sum > > 3b1787e7bd710592ee36264a72d6aa35c2d165f9 > > so that it qualifies for the second hash, but not for the first one. > This means that raw-sha1 and raw-sha1_LI must be kept separate. > It also means that it is a bad idea to call them both $dynamic_26$. Wow, a 140-bit collision? OK, verified sunshine09, and I also have the others in the LI dataset. This fact should be all over the Internet but I can't find it mentioned. I find that odd. Has anyone cracked a96807e7bd710592ee36264a72d6aa35c2d165f9? There could be other explanations than a partial collision. But regardless of that, I think you are basically right we should separate them. It's just that as long as one knows what he's doing, it's more effective running them together. magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.