Is it really insecure to still be using md5?

Is it really insecure to still be using md5?

For what? Signatures? No. Verifying a file was downloaded correctly? Yes.

You should not use MD5.

It depends on what you are using it for.

file checksumming

>md5
>oh hey your file's hash is "0f19042b401..."
>let me just make a malicious file and bruteforce garbage at the end until it matches "0f19042b401..."

And it'll find a match in seconds, that's the fun part.
I wouldn't trust md5 for consistency checks either.

>bruteforce garbage at the end until it matches "0f19042b401..."
>And it'll find a match in seconds, that's the fun part.
your dum
sage

sha-2 is pretty much a standard for anything that isn't [20XX] NEW GAEM 4 CRACKED + KeyGen lelelelel torrents

For hashing passwords? Absolutely. You can get a rig to bruteforce them at 50GH/s on a pretty small budget.

I seen code that can do this for CRC but not MD5.

>dum

You're a mentally retarded mouth breather.

use SHA1 at least

MD5 has way too many collisions

MD5 bruteforcing is considered babby tier now, I've even seen coding challenge websites that feature it as a beginner exercise.
I wrote one once in C and it finished in 5 seconds.

Sure you did, kiddo.

>"brute force" md5 in "seconds"
your dum

>Is it really insecure to still be using md5?
>For what? Signatures? No.
nigga wat

>Global Rules
>2. You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.

>neo-Sup Forums

did you write

int meme()
{
puts("Install Gentoo");
return(0);
}

Yes, using MD5 for anything is insecure. This includes verifying file downloads.

It's still effective against accidental corruption, but not secure against malicious corruption.

le ebin maymay redditor XD °_° lol

Quit shitposting in my glorious thread, thanks

>implying your thread isn't a shitpost itself

u mad faget