> A common mistake is too think of hashes as "encryption" - they're > not. They > don't represent the source. It's better to think of a hash as a > "Fingerprint". > > There is no way, using a fingerprint, to reconstruct the finger which made > it. That information isn't represented by the fingerprint (which > is only a "surface reflection"). > > However if you have a finger you CAN use a fingerprint to determine if the > finger is in face the one that made the print. > > In other words hashes (like fingerprints) can identify the original but > can't ever recreate it. > > Make sense? > > Jim Davis
Nice explanation Jim (:-) It's sometimes hard for people to understand this basic concept. That was the simplest, clearest, most common-sense take on hashing I've seen. I'll remember it if I need to go through this with a client. Dave Merrill ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:205945 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
