Message150857
Tim Peters wrote:
>
> Tim Peters <tim.peters@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> [Marc-Andre]
>> BTW: I wonder how long it's going to take before
>> someone figures out that our merge sort based
>> list.sort() is vulnerable as well... its worst-
>> case performance is O(n log n), making attacks
>> somewhat harder.
>
> I wouldn't worry about that, because nobody could stir up anguish
> about it by writing a paper ;-)
>
> 1. O(n log n) is enormously more forgiving than O(n**2).
>
> 2. An attacker need not be clever at all: O(n log n) is not only
> sort()'s worst case, it's also its _expected_ case when fed randomly
> ordered data.
>
> 3. It's provable that no comparison-based sorting algorithm can have
> better worst-case asymptotic behavior when fed randomly ordered data.
>
> So if anyone whines about this, tell 'em to go do something useful instead :-)
Right on all accounts :-) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2012-01-08 11:33:28 | lemburg | set | recipients:
+ lemburg, gvanrossum, tim.peters, barry, georg.brandl, terry.reedy, jcea, pitrou, vstinner, christian.heimes, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, Arfrever, v+python, alex, skrah, dmalcolm, gz, Arach, Mark.Shannon, Zhiping.Deng, Huzaifa.Sidhpurwala, PaulMcMillan |
2012-01-08 11:33:27 | lemburg | link | issue13703 messages |
2012-01-08 11:33:27 | lemburg | create | |
|