On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 08:06:18PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On 6/3/08, Otto Moerbeek  wrote:

quoted text
> > Ted, I think you are confusing matters.

> >

> >  md5 is a cryptographic hash, it surely transforms text into bit soup,

> >  but that is not not the same a an encryption function. For an

> >  encryption function, you want to have a corresponding computationally

> >  feasable decryption function. For hashes you're better off if no such

> >  function exists. Also, many texts have the same md5 output. For an

> >  encryption function that would be a major problem.

>

> Indeed.  I interpreted the use of the word "still" to be a question

> regarding the security or strength of MD5, not the nature of the

> mechanism.

Oh, in that case I'd think md5 is still a reasonably good as a pasword hash,
	-Otto