On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 08:56 -0400, michael.fe...@evonik.com wrote:
> I better already start to run for it,
> when I ever approve the use of the current implementation of the
> representation cache.
Here's what this says to me: it doesn't matter what the real risks are;
it only matters that the q
Mark Mielke wrote on Thu, 1 Jul 2010 at 10:40 -0400:
> I read that article several years ago. Correct me if I am wrong - but the
> article does not describe a "real world collision". It describes how it is
> technically possible to find a collision in fewer than previous thought
> sample.
Yeah. A
On 07/01/2010 08:00 AM, michael.fe...@evonik.com wrote:
Thanks for your wishes,
but it seems that I will never be famous:
"Hash Function Update Due to Potential Weakness Found in SHA-1"
http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2834
I read that article several years ago. Correct me if I am wrong
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> [ trim CC ]
>
> Mark Mielke wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 at 21:37 -:
>> On 06/30/2010 05:57 AM, michael.fe...@evonik.com wrote:
>> > P.S. Thanks for the warning; we are not going to use 1.7.
>
> Did you check what is the probability of dyin
[ trim CC ]
Mark Mielke wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 at 21:37 -:
> On 06/30/2010 05:57 AM, michael.fe...@evonik.com wrote:
> > P.S. Thanks for the warning; we are not going to use 1.7.
Did you check what is the probability of dying in a car accident?
> > At the Moment we are not using 1.6
I think if you could find a real life collision - you might be able to
get some sort of award. Good luck. :-)
Cheers,
mark
On 06/30/2010 05:57 AM, michael.fe...@evonik.com wrote:
Hello,
O.K., it seems there is really a need to discuss the problem of
SHA-1 collisions more deeply.
...
But one
On 06/25/2010 03:34 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
[1] apparently, no SHA-1 collisions have been found to date. (see
#svn-dev log today)
We know SHA-1 collisions must exist, however - they are also likely to
take unlikely form. The algorithms were specifically chosen so that
small changes in b
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, 25 Jun 2010 at 22:34 -:
>> If you have specific questions about FSFS internals, you can ask them on
>> this list.
>
> Why don't you just use BDB? Or use FSFS with rep-sharing disabled?
BDB does rep-sharing, too, and doesn't allow you to disa
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, 25 Jun 2010 at 22:34 -:
> If you have specific questions about FSFS internals, you can ask them on
> this list.
Why don't you just use BDB? Or use FSFS with rep-sharing disabled?
michael.fe...@evonik.com wrote on Fri, 25 Jun 2010 at 19:33 -:
> Hello,
>
> Martin got my point:
> >> It's not the probability which concerns me, it's what happens when
> >> a file collides. If I understood the current algorithm right the
> >> new file will be silently replaced by an unrelated
10 matches
Mail list logo
