From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3be2ae880613957957e63b3de4805c40@yyc.orthanc.ca> References: <5733d74fd7a9e5dc5d6584bae0b77f0e@ladd.quanstro.net> <3be2ae880613957957e63b3de4805c40@yyc.orthanc.ca> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:25:35 -0800 Message-ID: From: Akshat Kumar To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] In case anyone worries about block hash collision in Topicbox-Message-UUID: d02e2fd0-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 The case of intentional collisions is stronger than that of accidental collisions. If one were to worry about the former with regards to ROT-13, then the idea would be discarded before the latter ever became an issue. On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) wrote: >>> Seems to me you should be worried about both. >> >> let's not get carried away. =A0the odds of accidental >> collision are 1 2^80. > > And being worried about both leads to the choice of SHA-1 as a suitable > algorithm. If we weren't worried about it I'm sure some bright light woul= d > have picked ROT-13 for performance reasons. > > >