News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Did Google Erase Cooper's Beloved Literary Blog? by nkozyra on Monday July 25, 2016 @12:58AM (#12156554)
MD5 is long-broken as a security mechanism, but as a broader identifier of hashes, a soft match (or matches with potential false positives) might actually be preferred. In this case it might not inherently be a bad idea to use (as opposed to for password hashing).
Re:Why Did Google Erase Cooper's Beloved Literary Blog? by emn13 on Monday July 25, 2016 @03:32AM (#12157060)
Actually, precisely for applications such as password hashing MD5 has not been broken. MD5 is broken only in collusion with the author of the original stream to be hashed. For passwords, that would mean an attacker who can pick the password and already has access to the system might be able to pick a password such that other passwords also grant access... who cares?

Of course, irrespective of hash function you need to worry about weak passwords, so you'd need to use salting and an expensive stretching function, or only permit auto-generated passwords. But that's really not a weakness in the hashfunction; it's to mitigate weaknesses in the concept of a user-chosen password.

Re:Why Did Google Erase Cooper's Beloved Literary Blog? by colejohnson66 on Monday July 25, 2016 @01:33AM (#12156678)
But why use MD5 anyways? Google has quite an impressive image searching algorithm. Why not just use that? Using MD5 won't do anything because, almost certainly, a false positive is /not/ the same image. You'd need some kind of rolling hash that gets longer the longer the file is. Then do a soft check on that.
Re:Why Did Google Erase Cooper's Beloved Literary Blog? by j-pb on Monday July 25, 2016 @07:48AM (#12157987)
Because that would mean they have to train their networks on _huge_ amounts of actual child porn.