Re:Malicious Python Packages Replace Crypto Addresses in Dev...
by chrisshroba on Monday November 07, 2022 @04:27PM
(#33512748)
I think you may have intended to respond to this comment? [1]
Re:Malicious Python Packages Replace Crypto Addresses in Dev...
by hinkley on Monday November 07, 2022 @08:19PM
(#33514862)
Similar observation, posted at the same time. I just have a bit more context. Eyeballs glaze over looking at hex or base64 identifiers. It's a shame that in practice you likely can't use something that the eyes don't gloss over because you lose too much density in the process.
I'm happy to be proven wrong by someone who finds something in the middle. Preferably without using emojis...
The problem is that the information density of replacing hex with words is quite low, on the order of 14 bits per word, but much longer than the four letters needed to represent 16 bits in hex, which is itself a lot less dense than base64. You’d need 12 words to uniquely identify a sha-1 hash and most modern algorithms are less dense than that. But it would be harder to trick someone.
Maybe there’s some sort of 5:4 coding system that’s easier for humans to scan, still to be discovered out there?