Because man made SHA-2, so it must be breakable. I don't dispute that there are systems humans make that are breakable (that would be weird given my career).
Because man made SHA-2, so it must be breakable. I don't dispute that there are systems humans make that are breakable (that would be weird given my career).
Well, if you are that picky, then you will have to wait. MD5 was created in 1991, the first collision was found in 2004.
You want to pick a date and make a bet?
You are the one discarding every date. I'll take the opposite bet: it will eventually happen, on some date.
I haven't discarded any date. Pick one, and an amount to bet!
> OK, produce a SHA-2 collision.
- Why a collision?
> Because man made SHA-2, so it must be breakable. I don't dispute that there are systems humans make that are breakable (that would be weird given my career).
Thus implying there are man-made systems that are not breakable, and furthermore SHA-2 is one of them.
> I haven't discarded any date.
Going back so quickly?
I'm sorry, you've lost me. I was responding to the claim that any man-made system was breakable. The most obvious example of a man-made system that is unlikely to be breakable in our lifetimes (so, I'll say, "ever") is SHA2. Then someone responded that SHA2 wasn't an interesting target. It doesn't have to be; it just has to be man-made, or concede the narrowing of the original claim.