Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Something like this ohloh graph ?
It shows that Java is quite dominant in what they measured, but MS/VS doesn't have a Java-language any longer (though C# is close in some areas). It also shows that C# is quite a bit more used than VB or C++.-Ath (July 07, 2012, 03:58 AM)
Therein lies the problem with the FOSS philosophy once a popular project reaches a certain level of maturity. Some key players suddenly decide to take the codebase - along with all the freely submitted contributions from unpaid volunteers - and sell it for large sums of money. MySQL is one example of that.-40hz (July 06, 2012, 10:02 PM)
Whatever happened to the "release when it's ready" philosophy that was the trademark of FOSS development?-40hz (July 06, 2012, 06:33 PM)
won't be able to create proper single-exe programs with VS without installing a runtime-part anyway, and most modern computers (should) have the .NET runtime installed anyway, so select the language that the majority of Visual Studio programmers is using: C#-Ath (July 06, 2012, 01:53 PM)
Easiest way to turn off your computer is to press the power button!Ever did that while the system was writing into critical files? Hint: Don't.-Carol Haynes (June 29, 2012, 07:50 AM)-Tuxman (June 29, 2012, 09:51 AM)
.
The entire question is about entropy. This also goes for compression, though in a different manner.-Renegade (June 13, 2012, 10:14 AM)
.By layering on the same algorithm (or another one) you effectively increase the entropy each time you iterate the process.
. So as long as you don't throw a malfunctional or non-secure algorithm in the sequence, e.g. one that often hashes to 0 or something, you are good ;p. Myself, I have a policy of using *only* algorithms that produce at least a 512 bit digest. The exception is, of course, the first sequence in my hash, which is SHA1, only 160 bits.I'm always a bit weary of layering stuff like this though.. all it takes is one bad hash algorithm that by accident maps all inputs into a small hash space and you are in trouble.-mouser (June 13, 2012, 07:08 AM)
Bruce Schneier posted an article somewhere on his blog about double-layering of different algorithms on top of each other. Last I recall you added a couple of new corollaries.-TaoPhoenix (June 13, 2012, 06:23 AM)
A meta issue, which is touched on by Tao above when we talks about costs of migration, is building in a mechanism by which you can migrate passwords to new approaches. So dont just store a password hash and salt, store extra info like: When the password was last changed, and the hashing algorithm/parameters used when it was stored. So that if you decide to move from using 5000 rounds of blowfish as your hash algorithm to 10000 rounds of sha512, you can identify which algorithm was used to store each users password, and you won't break people's logins as you migrate them (looks like some of the modern password hashing algorithms are being clever and embedding this infomation in the hashed output) to make it easier to keep track of. And have an automated system in place for forcing users to upgrade their passwords, etc.-mouser (June 13, 2012, 04:11 AM)
. The new algorithm would then become:.
If you require a hash to be secure before you call it a digest, then why do you call MD5 a digest when there are known collisions? Doesn't that make MD5 an insecure hash?-Deozaan (May 08, 2012, 08:02 PM)