3 ms·

Hey :) I know what a hash function is. I also know the trade offs between using a hash and full blown encryption. "salts are supposed to be public. Furthermore

by axod 18y ago

Hey :) I know what a hash function is. I also know the trade offs between using a hash and full blown encryption. "salts are supposed to be public. Furthermore, they're supposed to be unique per record." There are no rules you know :/ For something like this, where you're just trying to make a log of IPs unreadable by the government/hackers/whatever, I'd still say a hash is the best bet. Your point about may as well encrypt is a valid one, but may result in higher complexity/cpu usage/mem usage/storage, for not much added security. It depends just how secure you want to be. I think we've flogged this one to death though :)

sho 18y ago
Well, true, there are no hard and fast rules. Whatever works. Some things work better than others, though! The hypothetical system we're arguing about is kind of ridiculous anyway. No-one is going to go to these lengths to protect just one tiny aspect of their operation, and if they did, it would be dwarfed by everything else. And this hypothetical secret-keeping operator is just going to tell the cops the secret within 5 minutes anyway. You can't "defeat" a country's own government, on their turf, like this. And let's not even think about the time we've wasted arguing about storing the IPs when the real solution would seem to be to just not store the damn search string .. Lol, this horse is dead all right.