Michael Gersten wrote:
>
> > % It is conjectured that it is computationally infeasible to produce
> > % two messages having the same message digest, or to produce any
> > % message having a given prespecified target message digest.
> Now, it may be that given an original message, it is hard to produce
> another message with the same output, or it may be hard to produce any
> message with a predetermined output, the bottom line is that it must
> be possible.
I should not have used the term "zero possibility", since it's not
strictly true. The "computationally unfeasible" term is much better.
Whichever way you look at it, the scenario with misleading timestamps
would be many orders of magnitude more likely than the scenario
of a changed file having the same digest.
> (it is needed if you are in an environment where timestamps can be
> changed or mis-maintained, such as an NT 4.0 sp 6 workstation box
> smb-mounted onto a linux system, as I have -- timestamps on files
> are not reliable, but at least are (seem to be) consistent.)
You too huh? (My exact same situation....)
Anyway I shall say no more about this until I have some code
to show... :-)
Regards,
Mitch.
--
| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Not the official view of: |
| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Australian Calculator Opn |
| Certified Linux Evangelist! | Hewlett Packard Australia |
