4 ms·
MD5 is still not too bad, if properly salted. And if you use multiple rounds of hashing, it can be as slow as Bcrypt. As far as I know, MD5 is still not general
by imaginenore 10y ago
MD5 is still not too bad, if properly salted. And if you use multiple rounds of hashing, it can be as slow as Bcrypt. As far as I know, MD5 is still not generally broken, we only found some weaknesses.
To prove me wrong you can try and reverse this one (unsalted , just one round):
27c8ac15df9357d92385f59aea2049e0
- joatmon-snoo 10y agoEven so, the fact that we have the knowledge to generate collisions in MD5 means you really shouldn't be relying on it when there are better alternatives.
- imaginenore 10y agoTry and generate a collision with the hash I gave. You can't, as far as I'm aware. We can only generate collisions of carefully crafted sources, not arbitrary ones. So MD5 is fine, as long as you follow the standard procedure for storing password hashes: 1) Unique salts + long master salt (to prevent rainbow table lookups). 2) Enough rounds of hashing. 3) Don't allow the most common passwords. 4) Don't allow very short passwords. I'm not saying MD5 is ideal, I use Bcrypt / Scrypt myself. But it's not MD5's fault Yahoo's engineers are lame.