4 ms·
I agree that sending the hash is the best implementation if it works as you have described, but that is a system that would be trivial to circumvent (make the .
by cmdrfred 11y ago
I agree that sending the hash is the best implementation if it works as you have described, but that is a system that would be trivial to circumvent (make the .png into a .jpg for example). Maybe they convert all the images to a similar file type and then hash it?
- nacs 11y agoThe hash they use is more complicated than that: converts images into a common black-and-white format and uniform size, then divides the image into squares and assigns a numerical value that represents the unique shading found within each square. Together, those numerical values represent the "PhotoDNA signature" or "hash" of an image - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/PhotoDNA/FAQ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/PhotoDNA/FAQ What I was suggesting was that the hash generation tool they use be distributed so the hash can be generated locally before sending to MS. This way MS can continue to keep all known hashes to themselves while making it easier for businesses to bulk check images without huge bandwidth charges or privacy issues.
- cmdrfred 11y agoIt appears we are in agreement. The only reason I can think of for them doing this is maybe they want to keep the PhotoDNA stuff private? Imagine the overhead on their end as well. The best way might be downloading the hashes to each server and comparing them like a virus scanner.