Karsten Hilbert wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:53:42AM +1000, Tim Churches wrote: > > >>>The hash is not md5 nut sha256 and ripmd160. I hope this makes a >>>differences. >>>If not. Tough luck. >> >>SHA256 is thought to be quite safe against both colision and pre-image >>attacks for now. > > The important part in this remark is "for now" and not > "quite safe". > > Any hash is liable to be successfully attacked eventually > (is there an equivalent to one-time pads in "hash space" ?). Yeah, the original document. ;-)
No point signing it: a signature involves a hash. The notary would be equivalent to a networked backup service. (which is of itself useful) Internet in Australia is too primitive for this to be commerically possible, should be feasible in DE though. Ian _______________________________________________ Gnumed-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
