|
|
|
|
|
by tptacek
6192 days ago
|
|
(a) This sentence doesn't make any sense. You can't "reverse" full SHA1 any more than you can "reverse" truncated SHA1. And SHA1 hashes are only 20 bytes long. Reversing isn't the attack. (b) The goal of the attack isn't to magically conjure the password; it's to magically conjure a searchlist of several tens of passwords, which is a game-changing improvement over a searchlist of, say, 72^8 passwords, or even tens of thousands of dictionary words. (c) The alternative suggested by Jakob Nielson is manifestly and categorically asinine. Good on you for a finding an application for visualizing a SHA1 hash. You score maximum points for cleverness. But now you should retire this idea. |
|
(b) Obviously. Still extraordinarily difficult given this implementation IMO. But I take your point genuinely.
(c) Agreed.
If you weren't so friggin inflammatory I'd think we could come to a conclusion here. I could definitely be using a more lossy visualization to be more secure. This is something I'll look into, even though I'm sure you'll still consider it 'retarded' even if it helps your grandma login to her googles more often, making you get less phone calls to fix it as a result. She's got that palsy you know.