On Thursday 01 September 2005 09:14, Ian Haywood wrote: > 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. > Apart from technical discussion all of you could help me if you say. Yes I would use this notary service and I would pay for it. I would pay this much. Or. No I wouldn't use it because ... don't need it, don't want it, too expensive ...
Sebastian > Ian > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnumed-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel -- Sebastian Hilbert Leipzig / Germany [www.openmed.org] -> PGP welcome, HTML ->/dev/null ICQ: 86 07 67 86 -> No files, no URL's VoIP: callto://[EMAIL PROTECTED] My OS: Suse Linux. Geek by Nature, Linux by Choice _______________________________________________ Gnumed-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
