| |
| ▲ | moralestapia 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What? Hashing is not encrypting. You can learn more about the topic here, https://www.okta.com/identity-101/hashing-vs-encryption/ | | |
| ▲ | coldtea 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's a joke, because hashing loses information, and thus the original is not retrievable, woosh | |
| ▲ | p-o 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Hashing is a part of encryption, maybe you are the one who needs to shore up on the topic? | | |
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A good hash function is surjective. Encryption is bijective. They're very different things. | |
| ▲ | aipatselarom 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nice try. However, hashing and encryption are two different operations. Load this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard Ctrl-F "hash". No mention of it. Before being pedantic at least check out the url in that comment to get the basics going. | | |
| ▲ | sowbug 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | This entire thread should be annihilated, but since you mentioned being pedantic... You're correct that a pure encryption algorithm doesn't use hashing. But real-world encryption systems will include an HMAC to detect whether messages were altered in transit. HMACs do use hash functions. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sowbug 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > What? > Hashing is not encrypting. > You can learn more about the topic here, https://www.okta.com/identity-101/hashing-vs-encryption/ Thank you for that link. Your original comment implied that Signal's threat model should have included an attacker-controlled end. The only way to do that is to make decryption impossible by anyone, including the intended recipient. A labyrinthine way to do that would be to substitute the symmetric-encryption algorithm with a hash algorithm, which of course destroys the plaintext, but does accomplish the goal of obfuscating it in transit, at rest, and forever. |
|
|
