Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with md5
Search options answers only
not deleted
user 971
a cryptographic hash function with a 128-bit (16-byte) output, now deprecated
37
votes
Is SHA1 better than MD5 only because it generates a hash of 160 bits?
There are devastating collision attacks on MD5. (The Wikipedia article on MD5 has some details.) … But certainly don't use MD5 in any setting where collision-resistance is needed, as that aspect of MD5 is completely broken. …
- 100k
2
votes
NTLMv2 resistance to bruteforcing
Yes, that's a pretty good approximation. The difference between the two is modest; in both cases, if users' password hashes are compromised, it is likely that an attacker will be able to recover many …
- 100k
32
votes
Why do people still use/recommend MD5 if it has been proven weak since 1996?
Or, to be a bit more serious: cryptographers already recommend that new systems should avoid MD5, and they recommend that existing systems should migrate away from MD5. … The cases where MD5 is still used are the exception, not the norm.
Edit (6/17): I see that you added some links that mention use of MD5 for hashing. …
- 100k