On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 09:55:20PM +0300, Edward Shishkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 03:45:06PM +0300, Alex Zarochentsev
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>Tea hash is designed to be more resistant.
> >>
> >>
>
> Actually this can not be more resistant as it use the same 32-bit output
> size.
Sure it can, filenames are not randomly distributed, so your argument doesn't
suffice to show that tea cannot be more resistent, as it could be more
resistent for other reasons.
That's why I originally wrote "nicely-looking", which (if it wasn't clear)
was meant to say that filenames with somewhat similar names do collide
even with tea, which suppossedly was chosen to avoid this case.
> So to find a collision you just need to find hashes of 2^16 = 65536
> random documents.
True. It's even worse if these collisions happen to filenames occuring in
practise.
(I also agree to the rest of your mail)
--
The choice of a
-----==- _GNU_
----==-- _ generation Marc Lehmann
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / http://schmorp.de/
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE
