On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > B: I vote on it with md5 hash <bar>. > > (The string hashed as <bar> would have to include cryptographic salt: > rather than "FOR", it would be "FOR /*8947521705932789*/".)
How confident are we that MD5 doesn't have collisions between "FOR".$somehash and "AGAINST".$someotherhash? -- Wooble
