# Tag Info

17

I don't believe that there's any way to generate the vanity hashes without iterating. In base 58, there's $\log_2(58) \approx 5.858$ bits per letter, so fixing 8 letters would need in average $58^8/2 = 2^{\log_2(58)·8}/2 \approx 2^{46}$ iterations. Note that Bitcoin addresses always start with a 1 by convention (this comes from the version field), and the ...

12

Initially there was MD4, then MD5; MD5 was designed later, but both were published as open standards simultaneously. MD5 had been designed because of suspected weaknesses in MD4 (which were very real !). So MD5 was the first (and, at that time, believed secure) efficient hash function with a public, readable specification. MD5 was immediately widely popular. ...

3

No, there is no security decrease in this case. While there could be some hypothetical constructions that might leak the preimage if two images are known, this is definitely not the case for existing hash functions, which are all quite different from each other. An example of such a weak pair of hash functions could be two versions of MD5: one with 63 ...

2

Theoretically, a hash function can be insecure and leak information about the plaintext. In this case knowing multiple hashes will let you make use of weaknesses in any of them. I agree with Dmitry Khovratovich that this isn't likely if you choose hash functions that are considered good, but it is a possibility. More concretely, knowing multiple hash ...

2

It is pronounced RIPE "tiny pause" M-D (RIPE for RACE Integrity Primitives Evaluation and M-D for message digest).

1

If I know your password is k bits long and I know the m bits, then I have to brute force the rest of the k-m bits. That's the standard for any algorithm and independent of whether this is prefix, suffix etc. This means that I have $2^{k-m}$ tests to make. However, you can even do better, You can say that you have a decayed version of the key, or you have ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible