3 ms·
> no one has demonstrated a preimage attack. So given just an illegal hash one can't construct an innocent image with that hash. These demonstrations show only
by nicce 5y ago
> no one has demonstrated a preimage attack. So given just an illegal hash one can't construct an innocent image with that hash. These demonstrations show only that a second image can be transformed to have the same hash as a first, given image.
Isn’t this exactly like that?
Or am I missunderstanding something.
https://twitter.com/ghidraninja/status/1428269674912002048?s=20 https://twitter.com/ghidraninja/status/1428269674912002048?s...
- kristjansson 5y agoNo. The author describes their process for generating the image down that very thread[0] Quoting the tweet for those who dislike twitter: > The procedure for this was pretty simple: > - Started with a placeholder image > - Got the hash of it > - Changed text of the image to match the hash > - Then used > @anishathalye great neural-hash-collider which took only 1-2 iterations N.B. it starts with 'started with an image, and the hash of it' [0]: https://twitter.com/ghidraninja/status/1428270675010199554 https://twitter.com/ghidraninja/status/1428270675010199554
- nicce 5y agoWhat is the practical difference? It is forged innocent image which has matching hash. You basically started with only a hash, as image was not related to it.