#21
Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:32 PM
#22
Posted 22 March 2013 - 10:35 PM
Linearus, on 22 March 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:
GravityScore, on 05 January 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:
#23
Posted 23 March 2013 - 12:08 AM
TheOriginalBIT, on 22 March 2013 - 10:35 PM, said:
Linearus, on 22 March 2013 - 10:32 PM, said:
GravityScore, on 05 January 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:
I was going to point this out, but thought nahhh. Linearus: you can use this and other smaller utilities/APIs by me freely without having to ask. If you want to use a program, I wouldn't mind you asking, but it's almost a guaranteed yes.
#24
Posted 29 March 2013 - 03:38 AM
Beware when updating your program: any stored passwords that were generated using the previous version will be redundant, and will not be comparable with this new version.
#25
Posted 29 March 2013 - 03:40 AM
#26
Posted 18 May 2013 - 11:55 PM
The implementation doesn't work for strings with length 55.
If the string's length is 55 then the hashing breaks.
Tested multiple times against PHP's hash function.
#27
Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:42 PM
#28
Posted 24 June 2013 - 05:52 PM
#29
Posted 18 November 2015 - 06:59 AM
#31
Posted 18 November 2015 - 02:03 PM
os.loadAPI("sha") sha.sha256("my string")
#33
Posted 18 November 2015 - 02:43 PM
#35
#36
Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:26 PM
#38
Posted 18 November 2015 - 04:53 PM
Creator, on 18 November 2015 - 04:47 PM, said:
IMO it would be better to add these functions to your own script because otherwise some malware could modify the hash function so it returns always the same "hash" which would be a big security hole.
#39
Posted 19 November 2015 - 06:30 PM
H4X0RZ, on 18 November 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:
But it's definitely something to consider ofcourse, but it's still easier to keep it as a separate API IMO.
#40
Posted 19 November 2015 - 10:19 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users