On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:40:22 +0200, "yyy" <[email protected]> wrote:
There isn't enough entropy in a filename for an MD5 checksum to give
much in the way of secrecy.
It seems that MD5 checksum is computed from file contents, not name.
Yes, I meant to use the MD5 checksum of the original file, not its
original name. I'm still interested whether this would be "insecure"?
I found a discussion on this list in 2011, where user atom wrote:
just make sure you're hashing the file-NAME, not it's contents.
of course, if you don't lose your db, then there's nothing wrong
with hashing the contents, or even a counter or random string.
hashing
the file-NAME is just an idea that makes recovery of the db possible
if
you know the format and range of the file-names (and any secret that
may be used). the real trick is to just do something secure and
consistent... sha1 does the job.
(http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg15110.html)
He states it's not a problem to hash the files contents, but it seems
to be thought of no different than "counter and random string" - this
are completely different things IMHO.
And, by the way, how could the hash of a filename be used to
reconstruct
the filename (as atom says "... makes recovery of the db possible ...")
There is no such thing as inverse-md5sum, is there? You'd still need
"brute force" to find the original name?
Thanks
Ben
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
