On Sunday 10 December 2000 17:35, you wrote:
> > 1.) A CRC is _not_ stronger than a hash. CRC is a subset of the hash
> > domain, defined as "a fast error-check hash based on mod 2 polynomial
> > operations" which has typically no crypto strength (and does not need it
> > either for most purposes
Sorry, but I just found out that many of my mails bounced because I was using
my secondary email address =8-0
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] CRC, hash & Co.
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 07:13:31 +1100
From: Horst Herb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTE
On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 01:58:29PM +1100, Horst Herb wrote:
> There have been some misconceptions in previous mails.
>
> 1.) A CRC is _not_ stronger than a hash. CRC is a subset of the hash domain,
> defined as "a fast error-check hash based on mod 2 polynomial operations"
> which has typically n
There have been some misconceptions in previous mails.
1.) A CRC is _not_ stronger than a hash. CRC is a subset of the hash domain,
defined as "a fast error-check hash based on mod 2 polynomial operations"
which has typically no crypto strength (and does not need it either for most
purposes).
2.
