Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email email@example.com
From: T Biehn (tbiehngmail.com)
Date: Mon Aug 10 2009 - 15:50:32 CDT
I don't have control over the set. Sorry I wasn't more explicit about
this. Although, it should have been obvious that the solution needed
to satisfy the conditions:
Data to one way hash.
The set has 9,999,999,999 members.
Thanks for your input sweetie!
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:26 PM, <Valdis.Kletnieksvt.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:14:57 EDT, T Biehn said:
>> Soliciting random suggestions.
>> Lets say I have data to one-way-hash.
>> The set has 9,999,999,999 members.
> Actually, if you're using a 10-digit decimal field, you probably have 10**10
> possible members - all-zeros counts too (unless there's *other* reasons zero
> isn't a legal ID). It's those little off-by-one errors that tend to get you.
>> It's relatively easy to brute force this, or create precomp tables.
> That's because you only have 10M billion members to brute force against.
>> So you add a salt to each.
> A better idea cryptographically would be to fix the 10**10 member limit, so
> that the set *could* have a much higher possible number of members. Even
> staying at 10 characters, but allowing [A-Za-z0-9] (62 possible chars) raises
> your space to 62**10 or about 8.3*10**17 (or almost 10M times the difficuly).
> That's why most symmetric crypto algorithms use at least 64-bit or even larger
> keys, and even larger for RSA and similar public-key systems.
pgp http://pastebin.com/f6fd606da pgp
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/