4 ms·
"You can trivially reverse them by iterating through every phone number and computing the hash." Well yes and no. What exactly is your understanding of a phon
by gerdesj 4y ago
"You can trivially reverse them by iterating through every phone number and computing the hash."
Well yes and no. What exactly is your understanding of a phone number 8)
Not everyone is blessed with the NANP. I'm a Brit and we have an eye wateringly complicated nonsense of a numbering plan and our's isn't the worst.
What do you hash? Perhaps the standardised international representation or one of them (no that is not a joke - telephony is weird). For a laugh you could try one of the many colloquialisms. For example a UK number might be 00441395112233 or 441395112233 or +44 (0)1395 112233 - the final part might be displayed as 112 233 or 112-233. Imagine if the database works by operating on all numbers in locally correct colloquial mode and hashes that!
Now let's really get silly: There are hashes that are nasty to compute but easy to check and vv. We'll use whatever is indicated.
Anyway this is all a very well researched problem, there is no need for silly games: passwords.
- ajsnigrutin 4y agoThis data is normalized before it's even saved to the database. You cannot send an sms to "+44 (0)1395 112-233", so they remove the stuff in parenthesis, the dashes, spaces, etc. first, and then store.
- kadoban 4y agoPhone numbers get complicated, yeah, but US numbers are pretty trivial (and so are they in several other places, and even for UK it's just more annoying, not really computationally harder). So at _best_ the security analysis is: "okay, all US phone numbers and a bunch from other places might as well be in cleartext", which is already broken enough that it's basically useless.
- groffee 4y agoSo normalise the data first? Your comment literally makes no sense at all.