
mckinnon at isis2000
Feb 18, 2000, 11:17 AM
Post #11 of 14
(1031 views)
Permalink
|
"G.W. Haywood" wrote: > > Hi all, > > On Thu, 17 Feb 2000, Bill McKinnon wrote: > > > Assuming that MD5 distributes things pretty evenly over its 128 bit > > space, the chances are: > > > > 1 in 340,282,366,920,940,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 > > Recently, somebody calculated live on TV that the odds against giving > birth on Jan 1 2000 (given certain assumptions) to be 32,000 to 1 > against. Those of you who know that there aren't 32,000 days in a > month will spot the similarity with the 51-digit number above. > > A famous British Prime Minister once said > > "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." > > 73, > Ged. Certainly you want to take into account how many times you will test the likelihood of something...if the chances are 1 in 75,000,000 that I'll win the lottery but I buy 50,000,000 tickets, the chances are a wee bit better that I'll win. :) But to even begin to make a dent in the above number you have to test a LARGE number of times. And all this might be academic anyway, since I've realized that the math is slightly more complex than I've made it out to be. Bruce Schneier does a great job of discussing the issues in _Applied Cryptography_, in Chapter 18, "One-Way Hash Functions." The whole point of message digest algorithms (or one of the points) is, given a message M and its hash H(M), make it hard to find another message M' where H(M) = H(M'). Just because of this fact alone you should know that you are reasonably safe from that sort of thing happening. Schneier points out a few theorectical flaws/past attacks against MD5 that might make the ultra paranoid avoid it...if you are one of these, use SHA1 or something (that has 160 bits of output). Mostly though, I think it's far more likely that your memory or CPU will spontaneously blip and give you an incorrect value, and we obviously don't test for that sort of thing. :) This is probably going offtopic for modperl...if people want to discuss things more, it might be best done offline. - Bill
|