2 ms·
They do have stronger schemes, which are called hash functions.
by sowbug 8mo ago
They do have stronger schemes, which are called hash functions.
- moralestapia 8mo agoWhat? Hashing is not encrypting. You can learn more about the topic here, https://www.okta.com/identity-101/hashing-vs-encryption/ https://www.okta.com/identity-101/hashing-vs-encryption/
- p-o 8mo agoHashing is a part of encryption, maybe you are the one who needs to shore up on the topic?
- aipatselarom 8mo agoNice try. However, hashing and encryption are two different operations. Load this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard Ctrl-F "hash". No mention of it. Before being pedantic at least check out the url in that comment to get the basics going.
- sowbug 8mo agoThis entire thread should be annihilated, but since you mentioned being pedantic... You're correct that a pure encryption algorithm doesn't use hashing. But real-world encryption systems will include an HMAC to detect whether messages were altered in transit. HMACs do use hash functions.
- AlotOfReading 8mo agoA good hash function is surjective. Encryption is bijective. They're very different things.
- sowbug 8mo ago> What? > Hashing is not encrypting. > You can learn more about the topic here, https://www.okta.com/identity-101/hashing-vs-encryption/ https://www.okta.com/identity-101/hashing-vs-encryption/ Thank you for that link. Your original comment implied that Signal's threat model should have included an attacker-controlled end. The only way to do that is to make decryption impossible by anyone, including the intended recipient. A labyrinthine way to do that would be to substitute the symmetric-encryption algorithm with a hash algorithm, which of course destroys the plaintext, but does accomplish the goal of obfuscating it in transit, at rest, and forever.
- coldtea 8mo agoIt's a joke, because hashing loses information, and thus the original is not retrievable, woosh
- moralestapia 8mo agoLol, good one, then :)