> > It's more like a theoretical "hole" that may some day prove to be the > > first step in a long long long process of understanding something that > > might maybe some day yield a way to de-crypt MD5. > > That's exactly my point. > > It's similar to how a local root exploit sometimes evolves into a > remote root exploit once publicized and people begin working on it. > > Disclaimer: There are only about 5 or 6 people in the entire world who > know anything about encryption.. and sadly I am not one of them. MD5 is hashing which is not the same as encryption. Hashing is normally defined as a one-way conversion of a plaintext message into a fixed-length digest or "hash". Encryption is normally defined as conversion of a plaintext message into ciphertext which cannot be read until it is decrypted -- i.e. encryption normally implies the possibility of decryption. In that framework there is no such thing as "decrypting" an MD5 digest, because an MD5 digest is not an encrypted version of the message to start with. No amount of CPU power will change this basic fact -- though CPU power can be used to do a brute force search for strings which will generate a given MD5 value. However, as stated before, at current levels of computing power this is not feasible for messages beyond I think 7 or 8 characters long (don't quote me on that). The recently discovered "hole" is unrelated to the above. It is that under certain conditions it is possible to find two different plaintext messages which will generate the same MD5 digest. This could theoretically allow one to spoof a message and have it appear legitimate if MD5 is used for the legitimacy check, but it does not allow "reversal" of MD5, nor do the authors of articles on this problem seem to claim that it could. -- Tom -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
