4 ms·

"Soon, digital memories will be just like real ones — slightly different every time we look back, but with no way of knowing what's changed ..." Well, let's se

by rsync 4y ago

"Soon, digital memories will be just like real ones — slightly different every time we look back, but with no way of knowing what's changed ..." Well, let's see: ssh user@rsync.net sha256 photos/IMG_1234.HEIC Yep, checks out.

Kuinox 4y ago
Sadly, you stored only the MD5 back then.
- rsync 4y ago
  We don't store any checksums - we just store your files. The checksum commands: (md5, sha1, sha224, sha256, sha384, sha512, sha512t256, rmd160, skein256, skein512, skein1024, cksum) ... are available to run as you see fit.
  - derefr 4y ago
    I think you misinterpreted the comment you're responding to; they meant that "sadly, you [the user] never thought to store a high-quality hash (e.g. SHA256) for integrity comparison with your stored data; and the hash you did decide to archive for integrity-comparison was a low-quality one (e.g. MD5) that can be trivially preimage-attacked such that a cloud provider could silently replace your data with a different one — with the same low-quality hash — without your knowledge." Nothing about rsync.net per se, other than the general idea that any data you put on "somebody else's server" can't be trusted to stay the same if you don't have a high-quality integrity-comparison content-hash of that data kept somewhere.
    - userbinator 4y ago
      MD5 still has no known preimage attacks. Neither does MD4, for which collisions are absolutely trivial to generate.
      - a1369209993 4y ago
        To be fair, it may yet turn out that MD5 is (and has always been, we just didn't know it yet) a low-quality hash that can be trivially preimage-attacked. I think that's unlikely[0], but I can easily imagine someone reasonable being a bit more pessimistic. I certainly wouldn't willingly rely on MD5 preimage resistance for anything important. 0: I'd be willing to bet money at 1:1 odds that MD5 preimages still cost at least 2^96 bit operations (out of a nominal 2^127 hash invocations) 5, 20, or 100 years from now.
- throwawayallday 4y ago
  ZFS defaults to fletcher4 for checksum. It has never had MD5 support.
- userbinator 4y ago
  MD5 is weak against malice but still much stronger than something like CRC if your goal is to detect random corruption.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    No, it's not. MD5 can still protect you from someone modifying the file without changing the hash.
low_tech_love 4y ago
Expecting general users to use checksums is exactly the answer I expect from HN.
- bitexploder 4y ago
  A solution around archive fidelity isn’t far from this idea though. And how hard is it to sling a find command to collect all your photo hashes?
  - pdntspa 4y ago
    Extraordinarily difficult, judging by GP's cynicism. Personally it is appalling just how little people are motivated to be nomically tech-literate in this extremely tech-driven society.
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      Tech is the only industry that asks this of it’s users, it’s just laziness on the developers part. People needing to know about hashing in order to save photos would be like people needing to know what refrigerant their A/C uses in order to keep cool. Can you? Sure. Are their weird edge cases where it’s mildly helpful to know as opposed to having to ask someone? Debatably. Should you need to in order to not have things break for no reason? Absolutely not.
      - bitexploder 4y ago
        I kind of agree with you both. We do ask a lot of our users. But also, there is no A/C system out there nearly as complex as software. It is hard. For everyone. We can do better, but what does that even look like? Consumer level technology consumption is not in a great spot, but it also isn’t horrible. Power users who can get more out of computing will be a thing for a long time to come.
      - pdntspa 4y ago
        Lots of things are complex and confront people to deal with it directly, we just also have legions of people that we can pay to step in for us and a culture where laziness and convenience are core principles to our everyday lives. Not to mention a political establishment that touts the "virtues" of a simple, ignorant life. Maintaining a house or yard, for example, or taxes. Driving also has a pretty high learning curve -- high enough to mandate driving lessons -- but once we learn it we're set for life. (Tech is the same way here....)
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by rsync 4y ago

Kuinox 4y ago

Sadly, you stored only the MD5 back then.

rsync 4y ago
We don't store any checksums - we just store your files. The checksum commands: (md5, sha1, sha224, sha256, sha384, sha512, sha512t256, rmd160, skein256, skein512, skein1024, cksum) ... are available to run as you see fit.
- derefr 4y ago
  I think you misinterpreted the comment you're responding to; they meant that "sadly, you [the user] never thought to store a high-quality hash (e.g. SHA256) for integrity comparison with your stored data; and the hash you did decide to archive for integrity-comparison was a low-quality one (e.g. MD5) that can be trivially preimage-attacked such that a cloud provider could silently replace your data with a different one — with the same low-quality hash — without your knowledge." Nothing about rsync.net per se, other than the general idea that any data you put on "somebody else's server" can't be trusted to stay the same if you don't have a high-quality integrity-comparison content-hash of that data kept somewhere.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    MD5 still has no known preimage attacks. Neither does MD4, for which collisions are absolutely trivial to generate.
    - a1369209993 4y ago
      To be fair, it may yet turn out that MD5 is (and has always been, we just didn't know it yet) a low-quality hash that can be trivially preimage-attacked. I think that's unlikely[0], but I can easily imagine someone reasonable being a bit more pessimistic. I certainly wouldn't willingly rely on MD5 preimage resistance for anything important. 0: I'd be willing to bet money at 1:1 odds that MD5 preimages still cost at least 2^96 bit operations (out of a nominal 2^127 hash invocations) 5, 20, or 100 years from now.
throwawayallday 4y ago
ZFS defaults to fletcher4 for checksum. It has never had MD5 support.
userbinator 4y ago
MD5 is weak against malice but still much stronger than something like CRC if your goal is to detect random corruption.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  No, it's not. MD5 can still protect you from someone modifying the file without changing the hash.

low_tech_love 4y ago

Expecting general users to use checksums is exactly the answer I expect from HN.

bitexploder 4y ago
A solution around archive fidelity isn’t far from this idea though. And how hard is it to sling a find command to collect all your photo hashes?
- pdntspa 4y ago
  Extraordinarily difficult, judging by GP's cynicism. Personally it is appalling just how little people are motivated to be nomically tech-literate in this extremely tech-driven society.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    Tech is the only industry that asks this of it’s users, it’s just laziness on the developers part. People needing to know about hashing in order to save photos would be like people needing to know what refrigerant their A/C uses in order to keep cool. Can you? Sure. Are their weird edge cases where it’s mildly helpful to know as opposed to having to ask someone? Debatably. Should you need to in order to not have things break for no reason? Absolutely not.
    - bitexploder 4y ago
      I kind of agree with you both. We do ask a lot of our users. But also, there is no A/C system out there nearly as complex as software. It is hard. For everyone. We can do better, but what does that even look like? Consumer level technology consumption is not in a great spot, but it also isn’t horrible. Power users who can get more out of computing will be a thing for a long time to come.
    - pdntspa 4y ago
      Lots of things are complex and confront people to deal with it directly, we just also have legions of people that we can pay to step in for us and a culture where laziness and convenience are core principles to our everyday lives. Not to mention a political establishment that touts the "virtues" of a simple, ignorant life. Maintaining a house or yard, for example, or taxes. Driving also has a pretty high learning curve -- high enough to mandate driving lessons -- but once we learn it we're set for life. (Tech is the same way here....)

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]