new | show | ask | jobs Github

moralestapia 3 hours ago

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.