a dsf as

Props to Pelle! This seems like an interesting app. But what if there’s a colission?

It is a hysterical joke. It’s me coming full circle from tiny perl cgi scripts to massive j2ee apps to smallish rails apps and finally tiny camping apps. And I am even laughing at the 12k ruby process minding it’s own business on my server.

This is exactly the kind of app that I wouldn’t want to setup a fully fledged rails app to do.

Did I mention that including all the html which is in markaby the whole app is about 8k. If I stripped all the blurb it would probably be about 3k.

Woops. I meant 12m process.

That’s awesome.

FlashHater: The thing about hashes is that they’re a gamble. Maybe there’ll be a collision. Maybe you will turn into a lonely walrus, gazing placidly across the ebony sea from whence came your telephones. Just a bit less likely than the ideal 2¹²⁸ but yeah.

Of course with our current set of hashing algorithms, that’s not such a strong guarantee in the face of a determined attacker. Lots of weaknesses turning up recently in MD5 (and SHA1 as an algorithm is mostly just a variation on the same theme…).

I’d at least suggest one of the bigger-numbered SHA -variants. That should do us okay for a while.

Whoops, that should be 2¹⁶⁰. I’m getting rusty after my long absence.

SHA1 us considered adequate for the majority of applications by most cryptanalists. It’s no harder really from a ruby standpoint to use SHA256 , which I do in other apps, but since the client has to generate the Hash it can be more difficult in other languages.

I might allow larger hash sizes though. I currently limit it to 40 hex bytes.

Hmm, even after the Shandong University results with SHA1 early last year and NIST abandoning it as a result? The Shandong paper only offered collisions in 2⁶⁹ rather than 2⁸⁰, so I wouldn’t call that a practical break yet, but we’re over the brute force hump now and we can expect better attacks.

I guess it depends on how paranoid you’re feeling, and over what time period you need the hashes to be useful— SHA1 ’s probably adequate right this moment, but will it still be adequate and relatively unbroken in five years?

Hmm, also, are you planning on digitally signing the TimeCerts?

I feel like I am raining on parades, but really I’m just asking these questions because I think TimeCert is nifty and I don’t want to see it get caught by surprise later.

It’s all a joke? Yeah, that’s what everyone says when it turns out people actually use the code they’re not particularly proud of… =)

...kind of reminded of my reaction when I noted people actually did play Miller’s Quest!...

(OK, yeah, Camping is pretty funny, in all honesty. I was kind of wondering if anyone really used the thing for anything…)

Well, you know, I take everything too seriously (see above comments), but really I think Camping’s API is a pleasure to use. If there’s a joke there, I don’t get it.

That haint true. I’ve been running an evil – very evil – little blog on it for a while now. It uses Backpack as a backend. That’s how evil it is.

wow that is evil. toss in a roundtrip off of google maps just for the hell of it :D

Can someone open comments for Markaby again?

It’s such a great product but I’m having some trouble with form_for

Dopey, come over to ruby-talk or comp.lang.ruby and discuss it.

Anything causing sobriety is a very large joke indeed.

Oh no! Hash Clash!