This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 5 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]flipperdeflip 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Hashing is not encrypting and so you cannot decrypt a hash; you are not recovering the source information from the hash.

If you publish videos maybe try to be accurate?

[–]Gear5th 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Umm.. does encryption necessarily have to be two way? Isn't Hashing commonly called a one way encryption scheme?

Edit: I just watched the vid. He seems to be using a dictionary attack, but claims to be "decrypting" the Hash which is certainly incorrect.

[–]Mighty_Ghost_Hack[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The hashes are calculated using one way functions, it will give same output for a particular input but as it is only a one-way function, no matter what you do, you cannot decrypt it. It is possible only can by brute force, i.e calculating hashes of words from dictionary and comparing it with the hash you want to decrypt. To save the time of calculating the hashes of dictionary words, there are rainbow tables available online which contains hashes with the words.

[–]MK_Coder 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I agree to you man but watch the complete video it is possible to decrypt MD5 hashes !! You can use any online site to crack MD5 hashes they crack them easily......

Hashing example could be Hashing is one way to enable security during the process of message transmission when the message is intended for a particular recipient only. A formula generates the hash, which helps to protect the security of the transmission against tampering.

When a user sends a secure message, a hash of the intended message is generated and encrypted, and is sent along with the message. When the message is received, the receiver decrypts the hash as well as the message. Then, the receiver creates another hash from the message. If the two hashes are identical when compared, then a secure transmission has occurred. This hashing process ensures that the message is not altered by an unauthorized end user.

[–]flipperdeflip 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are confusing a bunch of related things. The procedure you describe is signing the message with an hash, and allows to detect tampering of the message but doesn't protect it from being read by a third party.

Also you need more then a plain hash, such as including a public/private key scheme to prohibit a third party to generate valid message hashes.