On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ben Caplan > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> B: I vote on it with md5 hash <bar>. >> >> (The string hashed as <bar> would have to include cryptographic salt: >> rather than "FOR", it would be "FOR /*8947521705932789*/".) > > How confident are we that MD5 doesn't have collisions between > "FOR".$somehash and "AGAINST".$someotherhash?
I was just about to start brute-forcing that... -root
