On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Ron_1st <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 24 October 2008, Kari Laine wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
>
> >
>
> Nice to hear the result. So the theory story is now proven by your test.
> Did you see a big difference between the used time for md5 and sha methods?
Hi,
I c
On Friday 24 October 2008, Kari Laine wrote:
> Hi,
>
> referring to discussion few days back I have now tested md5sum with 540388
> files and got NO collisions - I think. Method I used was to calculate md5sum
> and sha512sum for all those files.
> then I asked from database distinct total values f
Rob ha scritto:
> On Friday 24 October 2008 15:10, Kari Laine wrote:
>
>> referring to discussion few days back I have now tested md5sum with
>> 540388 files and got NO collisions - I think. Method I used was to
>> calculate md5sum and sha512sum for all those files.
>>
>
> I really think th
Kari Laine ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> referring to discussion few days back I have now tested md5sum with 540388
> files and got NO collisions - I think. Method I used was to calculate md5sum
> and sha512sum for all those files.
> then I asked from database distinct total values for both fields and they
On Friday 24 October 2008 15:10, Kari Laine wrote:
> referring to discussion few days back I have now tested md5sum with
> 540388 files and got NO collisions - I think. Method I used was to
> calculate md5sum and sha512sum for all those files.
I really think that the problem with md5sum collisions
Hi,
referring to discussion few days back I have now tested md5sum with 540388
files and got NO collisions - I think. Method I used was to calculate md5sum
and sha512sum for all those files.
then I asked from database distinct total values for both fields and they
come up with the same number. In
