Matches for sha1, 135 total results Sorted by newest | relevance
Sat Apr 15 17:15:11 UTC 2017 <asciilifeform> punkman: more chance of being flattened by an asteroid, than of finding an actual (vs. e.g., 'sha1 puzzle') key this way.
Sun Feb 26 11:31:55 UTC 2017 <assbot> Andrew R. Whalley sur Twitter : "The sha1 collision blocks might have been a PDF header, but now we have them... https://t.co/v2vJRohBR0 https://t.co/FxdtQyJNyK https://t.co/1zdD3Z8UXs" ... ( http://bit.ly/2kZgNXo )
Thu Feb 23 14:50:35 UTC 2017 <assbot> BitBet - A SHA1 collision will be found before the end of 2017 :: 24.76 B (66%) on Yes, 12.87 B (34%) on No | closing in 10 months 5 days | weight: 92`136 (100`000 to 1) ... ( http://bit.ly/2lcEiYT )
Sun Nov 13 18:12:52 UTC 2016 <kakobrekla> sha1 is fast neh
Thu Aug 25 19:28:00 UTC 2016 <funkenstein_> no SHA1 collisions observed either right?
Thu Aug 25 19:22:08 UTC 2016 <punkman> so sha1 collision takes 1 month on pc?
Wed Mar 23 01:46:57 UTC 2016 <mrottenkolber> oh its late, it uses sha1 obviously but not on plain files >.>
Wed Mar 23 01:45:12 UTC 2016 <mrottenkolber> Which is probably less cryptographically “secure” as sha1 (wild guess)
Wed Mar 23 01:44:45 UTC 2016 <mrottenkolber> So I learned today that git does't use sha1 as I thought, but its own git-hash-object
Tue Mar 22 20:33:43 UTC 2016 <mircea_popescu> mrottenkolber> Naive question: what would be the implications of using sha1 instead of sha512 in vdiff? << roughly speaking you'd be going back in time, we're by and large in the process of moving to sha-3
Tue Mar 22 20:27:34 UTC 2016 <mrottenkolber> But e.g. in my head, if you spend 70k to compute a sha1 collision, it won't look like C code probably ;-)
Tue Mar 22 20:25:49 UTC 2016 <mrottenkolber> I am only mentioning the sha1 option because I don't understand crypto well enough to be able to rationalize the effort of producing a file, with the same sha1sum, with an exploit while the patch still applies.
Tue Mar 22 20:18:27 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> phf: thing is that i have no intention of ignoring the sha1 issue. sha1 is ~broken~.
Tue Mar 22 20:17:59 UTC 2016 <phf> asciilifeform: well, you can verify data without verifying git. i've done it, and the thing definitely produces a semblance of "blockchain", i.e. later commits hashes previous commits' hashes, so you can if you ignore the sha1 issue, take a git branch and confirm its uniqueness from the final hash
Tue Mar 22 20:14:57 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> phf: not only are git hashes sha1, but git itself is a gigantic bag of ?????.
Tue Mar 22 20:12:37 UTC 2016 <phf> mrottenkolber: if that's your only goal, you don't need v for that. git already does it for you by having a linearly hashed commit chain. right now you have a reasonable way of verifying the git chain from the top hash, but you can't make any crypto claims about it, since the hashes are sha1
Tue Mar 22 20:07:22 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> and yes, you are free to replace the hash with sha1 or md5 or crc32 or whatever, just like you are free to buy a toyota and drive it off a cliff
Tue Mar 22 19:57:32 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> mrottenkolber: sha1 is obsolete
Tue Mar 22 19:56:21 UTC 2016 <mrottenkolber> Naive question: what would be the implications of using sha1 instead of sha512 in vdiff? (thinking about porting V to git hooks/aliases)
Wed Mar 09 19:58:38 UTC 2016 <asciilifeform> (summary: article elementarily demonstrates that a hash of the sha1 type could be designed with trapdoor. and then argues nonsensically that we 'know' there could have been none such.)