3 ms·
I think the use of "cryptographically" there is a bit silly, but otherwise they're spot on. You could have a billion computers, each trying a billion unique gu
by daeken 12y ago
I think the use of "cryptographically" there is a bit silly, but otherwise they're spot on. You could have a billion computers, each trying a billion unique guesses per second, for a billion years, and you would've only guessed 0.000000000002158% of the possible values.
160 bits is a lot of bits.
- pbsd 12y agoWell, it would depend on the entropy of the folder. Maybe we know the general structure of the folder, except some crucial short piece of information. Otherwise, everyone would also be fine using SHA-1 to store passwords. N.B: I don't know anything about the protocol, or whether the above applies. But appealing to the strength of a hash function only makes sense for hard-to-guess hashing material, which is not always the case.
- e12e 12y agoRight. But as I read it, the 160bit hash is over the content, in order to find peers with the same content. So if I wonder who's got a certain leaked document, or a certain media file, the hash can be used to xheck for that? Could be enoygh to get a warrant, for example? If I know a certain document, say payslip.pdf and guess it is in a folder named payslips - maybe I could guess the other values and verify my guess with the hash (yeah, probably not a very interesting example ...)