Timeline for Why can't we reverse hashes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Apr 13, 2017 at 1:28 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S Apr 13, 2017 at 1:28 | comment | added | e-sushi | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| Apr 11, 2017 at 16:53 | history | edited | e-sushi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 239 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2017 at 10:38 | history | edited | e-sushi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
linked up pointers to collision attack info sites.
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 22:58 | comment | added | e-sushi |
@ŁukaszNiemier I didn't state it "obsoletes" a hash. I wrote would have to be considered as broken (as in "theoretical break"). See, if you happen to stumble over such a collision, it's called a "theoretical break" and if you can intentionally produce such pairs, it's called a " practical break". The first is a warning sign and what I pointed at in my answer, the later is practically a dead sentence. (Even when practically broken, it should be noted there are limited situations and very specific ways you could still use such a hash... but its initial functionality is rendered insecure.)
|
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 22:46 | comment | added | Hauleth | I do not thing that fact of known collision would make SHA-2 or SHA-3 obsolete. If such collision happens "accidentally" it would mean nothing. But if someone could intentionally generate such pair, then yes, it would be broken. | |
| Apr 6, 2017 at 17:09 | history | edited | e-sushi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 122 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 17:04 | history | edited | e-sushi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 122 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 16:57 | history | edited | e-sushi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 122 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2017 at 16:45 | history | answered | e-sushi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |