Timeline for Is MD5 considered insecure?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 28, 2017 at 15:56 | comment | added | Eric Grange | @Evi1M4chine in the era of IPv6, an attacker can easily (and cheaply) have millions of different IPv6 addresses | |
| Sep 9, 2017 at 5:01 | comment | added | anon | @EricGrange: Obviously you limit them for each IP or whatever, not in total. | |
| Dec 17, 2015 at 11:19 | comment | added | Eric Grange | FWIW limiting login attempts in this ways just makes it very easy to perform denial of service | |
| S Jun 20, 2013 at 8:30 | history | suggested | jonsca | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Removed signature
|
| Jun 20, 2013 at 8:28 | comment | added | CodesInChaos | 1) I explicitly wrote that MD5 and SHA-2 are not secure as password hashes. 2) There are no known attacks on SHA-512 when used properly. It's a cryptographic hash, not a password hash. 3) You're missing the point of password hashes. The point of a password hash is to protect passwords when your database has been leaked. In that scenario a rate limiter doesn't help at all. | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 8:18 | comment | added | TildalWave | You're not accounting for stolen / improperly discarded backups of user databases or user records retrieved en masse through some exploit (say a SQLi). Your answer is pertaining to hacking live databases through and by the server application that is supposed to be the only one accessing such data, one user account at a time, which - if that was the only risk - could be solved much more elegantly and password hashes wouldn't be needed in the first place. Don't believe me? Ask LinkedIn (among many others) ;) | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 8:17 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 20, 2013 at 8:30 | |||||
| S Jun 20, 2013 at 8:13 | review | Late answers | |||
| Jun 20, 2013 at 9:06 | |||||
| S Jun 20, 2013 at 8:13 | review | First posts | |||
| Jun 20, 2013 at 8:17 | |||||
| Jun 20, 2013 at 7:57 | history | answered | Dom | CC BY-SA 3.0 |