I have tried to research this and im always running into old articles.
What I have come across are (possibly more):
md5, sha1, hash, crypt and mcrypt
Now I have used md5/sha1 before and have 32/40 character long strings the others I dont know too much about but in short, what is the best encryption method? (I may have not even listed it)
I just love this question. In my opinion, it is best to use more than one hash so that it is harder to crack. And so that those online database chrackers can't store your hash, include the whirlpool hash. So below is a function I have made for a much better hash:
The function above will be really hard to crack as it uses oppisite types of output. One of the advantages with the function above is that crc32b is short (less data recorded) and whirlpool is long (containing more data). And since a whirlpool hash is 128 characters long, I doubt anybody will have a giant database of the whirlpool conversions. Of course you could use all of the hashes in the function but may make take a bit of cpu.
Any other comments?
Check this link.. http://www.hudzilla.org/phpbook/read.php/17_3_7
I also read here that md5 can generate collision (and is not safe anymore!). Someone also mentions (in the 2nd link) that whirlpool (as mentioned by cwarn23) is a good replacement! SHA1 isn't a safe encryption method too! Hmm.. I should stop using SHA1 !
The terms 'crc32b' and 'whirlpool' are just random variables selected or actual hash functions? could I have used 'apple123' and 'banana123' instead?
Well the terms 'crc32b' and 'whirlpool' are what tells the computer which type of hash to use, so no you can't change those unless you want to use a different type of hash. It is the second field contains the string to hash.
I just love this question. In my opinion, it is best to use more than one hash so that it is harder to crack. And so that those online database chrackers can't store your hash, include the whirlpool hash. So below is a function I have made for a much better hash:
The function above will be really hard to crack as it uses oppisite types of output. One of the advantages with the function above is that crc32b is short (less data recorded) and whirlpool is long (containing more data). And since a whirlpool hash is 128 characters long, I doubt anybody will have a giant database of the whirlpool conversions. Of course you could use all of the hashes in the function but may make take a bit of cpu.
Any other comments?
Thats a very nice function. I wish I could give you more rep today
Either the thread starter or a moderator has marked this thread as solved. You can most likely trust the responses and answers given. There is most likely no reason for any further responses to be posted here. If you have a related question, please start a new thread in this forum instead.
This thread is more than three months old
No one has posted to this discussion for at least three months. Please let old threads die and do not reply to them unless you feel you have something new and valuable to contribute that absolutely must be added to make the discussion complete. Otherwise, please start a new thread in this forum instead.