> > 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,

No, it is terrible.  It is too fast.  You can screw around and wrap a bunch

of balony layers around it, but it is still going to be too fast.  If

you actually wanted to do things right, look at our bcrypt.   It was

designed.