* Anthony DeRobertis a...@suespammers.org, 2001-12-08, 10:43:
Seriously, why the second test? Assuming MD5 isn't horribly broken,
there is a higher chance of a random bit error reading the data than of
MD5 giving a false answer.
9 years later we know that MD5 *is* horribly broken. So I guess
And actually, why using md5sum? There is no security issue at stake
here, and a mere 128-bits crc checksum would be much faster and have
just the same collision probability.
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Samuel Thibault, le Wed 28 Jun 2006 15:34:12 +0200, a écrit :
A typical disk MTBF is of the order of a million hours. Considering
40Mo/s speed, reading 4Ko takes roughly 1/10,000th second. As a result,
you have a rough read error probability of 1/36,000,000,000,000.
Samuel Thibault, le Sun 02
Anthony DeRobertis, le Sat 08 Dec 2001 10:43:36 -0500, a écrit :
Seriously, why the second test? Assuming MD5 isn't horribly broken,
there is a higher chance of a random bit error reading the data than of
MD5 giving a false answer.
Just a few gross figures for a 4Ko file.
A typical disk MTBF
4 matches
Mail list logo
