Talk:Venti (software)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Venti (software) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
} {{WikiProjectBannerShell|
Assertion edit
The assertion that all possible data blocks can be differentiated by a 160-bit SHA-1 hash is just unmitigated blindness: "Venti cannot lie since SHA-1 is a cryptographically secure hash; no data block can be found with the same address.". One would certainly hope Venti does something intelligent when that rare collision happens, rather than silent failure or crash... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siodhe (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- A Venti installation is more likely to be destroyed by a tornado than trip over a SHA-1 collision. Venti does not do anything especially intelligent when that rare tornado happens. 70.225.161.132 (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention how Venti deals with hash collisions (if it does so at all).
--69.108.105.157 17:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
The new venti (nventi?) is now a part of Plan 9, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.116.128 (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Broken Links edit
Many of the (historical?) links to cs.bell-labs.com aren't there. Archive.org doesn't seen to find them either —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikip rhyre (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
SHA-1 collision is now possible edit
Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-1#SHAttered_-_First_public_collision
As of 2017-02-17, SHA-1 collision is possible. Need to update the relevant section in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.226.176.242 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
- Seconded. The statement that the same hash means the same data is false in any case where the hash is shorter than the data. Collisions must always be expected. I’ve always said that anyone who uses hashes without employing collision prevention, half-asses his work and cannot be trusted (and has probably cheated on his final exams). Fight me. :) —
- 2A02:3035:603:3C9C:AF09:6A5F:6402:185D (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- Another misleading statement is that the risk of collisions is very small. In reality, even ONE collision can completely ruin your data. And collisions on short sequences of data are trivial to find. “Very small” is not good enough. Even for home users. Especially in software whose half point is backup. — 2A02:3035:603:3C9C:AF09:6A5F:6402:185D (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)