Is it really insecure to still be using md5?
For what? Signatures? No. Verifying a file was downloaded correctly? Yes.
>>54396486
You should not use MD5.
It depends on what you are using it for.
>>54396764
file checksumming
>md5
>oh hey your file's hash is "0f19042b401..."
>let me just make a malicious file and bruteforce garbage at the end until it matches "0f19042b401..."
And it'll find a match in seconds, that's the fun part.
I wouldn't trust md5 for consistency checks either.
>>54396895
>bruteforce garbage at the end until it matches "0f19042b401..."
>And it'll find a match in seconds, that's the fun part.
your dum
sage
sha-2 is pretty much a standard for anything that isn't [20XX] NEW GAEM 4 CRACKED + KeyGen lelelelel torrents
For hashing passwords? Absolutely. You can get a rig to bruteforce them at 50GH/s on a pretty small budget.
>>54396895
I seen code that can do this for CRC but not MD5.
>>54396905
>dum
You're a mentally retarded mouth breather.
>>54396580
use SHA1 at least
MD5 has way too many collisions
>>54396933
MD5 bruteforcing is considered babby tier now, I've even seen coding challenge websites that feature it as a beginner exercise.
I wrote one once in C and it finished in 5 seconds.
>>54396972
Sure you did, kiddo.
>>54396957
>"brute force" md5 in "seconds"
your dum
>>54396580
>Is it really insecure to still be using md5?
>For what? Signatures? No.
nigga wat
>>54397002
>Global Rules
>2. You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.
>>54397001
>>54397002
>neo-/g/
>>54396972
did you writeint meme()
{
puts("Install Gentoo");
return(0);
}
>>54396486
Yes, using MD5 for anything is insecure. This includes verifying file downloads.
It's still effective against accidental corruption, but not secure against malicious corruption.
>>54397033
le ebin maymay redditor XD °_° lol
>>54397074
Quit shitposting in my glorious thread, thanks
>>54397232
>implying your thread isn't a shitpost itself
u mad faget
