<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: MD5 seriously broken (welcome to the &#8220;old news&#8221; segment)</title>
	<link>http://www.lyranthe.org/diary/2005/06/10/md5-seriously-broken-welcome-to-the-old-news-segment/</link>
	<description>Musings about technology, Irish events, and other miscellaneous stuff.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:14:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Aidan Kehoe</title>
		<link>http://www.lyranthe.org/diary/2005/06/10/md5-seriously-broken-welcome-to-the-old-news-segment/#comment-340</link>
		<dc:creator>Aidan Kehoe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:56:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.lyranthe.org/diary/2005/06/10/md5-seriously-broken-welcome-to-the-old-news-segment/#comment-340</guid>
		<description>Of course, it remains fine as a hash for many purposes--caches, or for authentication of passwords when combined with a decent salt, for example; shame, though. It was nice that for such a long time one of the most widely-used hash functions was also cryptographically strong.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course, it remains fine as a hash for many purposes&#8211;caches, or for authentication of passwords when combined with a decent salt, for example; shame, though. It was nice that for such a long time one of the most widely-used hash functions was also cryptographically strong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
