Talk:MD5CRK

The "perspective" section is wrong. An MD5 operation takes longer a floating point operation. 216.27.176.198 09:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to "Virginia Tech's System X" is broken (for me at least). ---- 131.216.134.91 (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of odd things in this article: Almost certainly no cycle finding algorithm was used, since the search was distributed. I.e. one would start at a random value, repeatedly hash that value until a distinguished point is found and collect starting point and end point of these hash chains. Once a collision in the end points is found, one likely has a collision somewhere in the hash chain and hence two colliding hash values, but no cycle. The math part is sloppy too. The first formula appears to be the probability of not finding a collision after K hash computations and not as claimed the expected time to find a collision. As noted by User:216.27.176.198 the perspective underestimates the time it would take to find a collision. E.g. the Crypto++ benchmarks achieve about $2^{23}$ MD5 computations per second on a 1.83 GHz Intel Core 2 using one core. Using this benchmark, I get about 80'000 CPU-years to find a collision. That is of course feasible, but quite a bit longer than what the article suggests now. From archieved web pages it appears that less than 1% of the expected computation was finished in about 6 months while the project was running. Maybe the page should just be deleted, because the project did not achieve a notable result. 85.2.34.224 (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance

I can't find any references on this project. Did it achieve any relevant results? If the project had any significant results, wouldn't there be at least a published conference paper? 213.3.124.197 (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MD5CRK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513090927/http://www.certainkey.com/news/?13 to http://www.certainkey.com/news/?13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]