4 ms·
It will reduce the probability of a collision at the expense of the address being longer - because now you need to carry around hash1 + hash2. But still it does
by gtrubetskoy 11y ago
It will reduce the probability of a collision at the expense of the address being longer - because now you need to carry around hash1 + hash2. But still it doesn't eliminate the possibility, only makes it less likely.
- hardwaresofton 11y agoExactly, what I noted was the most likely temporary/possibly long-term solution to the problem. What about hashing an object that contains the hashes generated by x hashing algorithms? an extra step of resolution, sure, but some way to easily demarcate that some file experienced a collision with another file, and had to have the number of hashes increased to stave off further collisions?
- dchest 11y agoThere's no hashing construction that will "completely eliminate the possibility" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle), so I'm not sure what answer you're looking for. It's computationally infeasible to generate collisions (accidental or malicious) if SHA-2 is not broken. If you're interested in reading about how combining multiple hashes affects security, see this paper: https://www.iacr.org/cryptodb/archive/2004/CRYPTO/1472/1472.pdf https://www.iacr.org/cryptodb/archive/2004/CRYPTO/1472/1472....