[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Monotone-devel] Hash collisions resiliency
From: |
Nathan Myers |
Subject: |
Re: [Monotone-devel] Hash collisions resiliency |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Apr 2005 15:31:46 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 08:10:21AM +1000, William Uther wrote:
> I'm a little confused here. People are saying that hash collisions
> are hard to detect - that you'd have to do a full-text check of all the
> files. That doesn't seem right. Couldn't you just have a table of
> hashes in the database.
No. Suppose you add a file to your repository, and I add one to
mine. Unbeknownst to us, they has the same. When we reconcile our
repositories, now there are two files with the same hash.
If you compared length, too, that would be equivalent to adding
more bits of hash. Going to SHA-256 would be better than comparing
lengths.
Nathan Myers
address@hidden
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Hash collisions resiliency, (continued)
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Hash collisions resiliency, tekHedd, 2005/04/14
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Hash collisions resiliency, Jon Bright, 2005/04/15
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Hash collisions resiliency, Peter Simons, 2005/04/15
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Hash collisions resiliency, Jon Bright, 2005/04/15
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Hash collisions resiliency, Nathan Myers, 2005/04/15
- [Monotone-devel] Re: Hash collisions resiliency, Peter Simons, 2005/04/15
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Hash collisions resiliency, Nathaniel Smith, 2005/04/15
- Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Hash collisions resiliency, Nathaniel Smith, 2005/04/16
Re: [Monotone-devel] Hash collisions resiliency, Richard Li, 2005/04/13
Re: [Monotone-devel] Hash collisions resiliency, William Uther, 2005/04/13
Re: [Monotone-devel] Hash collisions resiliency, William Uther, 2005/04/13