Post #3949554
2026-07-20 03:45 UTC
Replies (3)
-
@muddle@infosec.exchange 2026-07-20 03:53
@thedarktangent@defcon.social OK, thanks. I didn't read the whole thing but I assume that the whole point is that the mapping is surjective? That is to say, if we mapped all possible inputs to all possible outputs, the set of outputs would be at least potentially smaller? I'm looking for a rationale as to why the data set is compressible at all and this seems reasonable at least. Damn. I used to know this stuff.
-
@muddle@infosec.exchange 2026-07-20 03:56
@thedarktangent@defcon.social ... and chain length is proportional to a number of rounds, each of which is capable of being captured into a smaller set of pre-computed orbits? Sorry if I'm forgetting this, but I thought that most salted, hashed passwords only involved a single round? (aight, sorry... back to the books for me)
-
@muddle@infosec.exchange 2026-07-20 04:09
@thedarktangent@defcon.social OK. I get it now. Birthday Paradox (hash collision) implies ever-decreasing circles (aka limit cycles, etc.). So compression is possible.