5 ms·
With any good hash function there is pretty much zero risk of this happening.
by Paul-ish 12y ago
With any good hash function there is pretty much zero risk of this happening.
- Karunamon 12y agoI'm not willing to ruin someone's life over the equivalent of winning a particularly bad lottery.
- Scaevolus 12y agoYour chances of having your life ruined by any other cause is at least 2^64 times more likely than because your uploaded cute_cat.jpg has the same hash as a flagged child_porn.jpg.
- dagw 12y agoI'm assuming we're not talking about SHA1 hashes here (which would be trivial to get around), but image matching hashes (probably something like http://phash.org/ http://phash.org/) which are much more fuzzy. If that is the case then collisions will be far more common.
- eli 12y agoDepending on the exact hash, the odds might be more like winning 10,000 lotteries.
- Ded7xSEoPKYNsDd 12y agoNote that we're talking about fuzzy image-matching hashs that attempt to match an image to its source even after it was cropped at the edges, maybe got a new watermark somewhere and was recompressed with JPEG a few times. I don't know the false positive rate of these algorithms but I imagine they're much bigger than that of a cryptographic hash function (that's what analogies like yours usually refer to).
- Retra 12y agoA hash collision is not proof of anything. You just look at the picture if the hash matches. It is not illegal to own an image that hashes to the same thing as an illegal image would.