Author haypo
Recipients Arfrever, PaulMcMillan, Vlado.Boza, benjamin.peterson, dmalcolm, haypo, koniiiik
Date 2012-04-26.23:10:43
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1335481843.82.0.00366765367596.issue14621@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> Problem with current randomization of hash function
> is following: Suffix does not influence whether two keys
> have some hash or not (it is xor-ed after everything).

Yes, the suffix is used to "protect" the secret. Without the suffix, it would be too simple to compute the prefix: getting a single hash value of a known string would leak the prefix.

> Suffix does not influence whether two keys have some hash
> or not (...). Everything except last 8 bits in prefix does
> not influence it also.

I don't know if we can do better and/or if it is a critical issue.
History
Date User Action Args
2012-04-26 23:10:43hayposetrecipients: + haypo, benjamin.peterson, Arfrever, dmalcolm, PaulMcMillan, Vlado.Boza, koniiiik
2012-04-26 23:10:43hayposetmessageid: <1335481843.82.0.00366765367596.issue14621@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2012-04-26 23:10:43haypolinkissue14621 messages
2012-04-26 23:10:43haypocreate