= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gfrlog comments on Techniques for probability estimates - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (58)
But there's no paranoia involved. It's cryptographically quite simple. All you need is a hash function.
Contrast with all of the governments and all of their security agents and such and nobody really trusts that it's secure.
A hash function on a die roll is quite vulnerable to a dictionary attack. You could add a salt, but this makes hash collisions easier to take advantage of.
You wouldn't use a hash function that people could generate collisions with, any more than you would use ROT-13.
Of course a salt. Not sure why that would make hash collisions easier to take advantage of though. Presumably you use a good hash function.
The point is there are people who would not realize that you need a salt, or a hash function not vulnerable to collisions. Yes, there are existing solutions for this problem, but even choosing an existing solution from the space of security solutions to different problems is not trivial.
Why does "some people don't know how this works" make it less trivial?