Timeline for Is there a way to find out which hash standard by studying the source code?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2018 at 15:04 | vote | accept | EmbeddedGuy | ||
| Apr 23, 2018 at 21:21 | comment | added | Igor Skochinsky♦ | The code looks a little ugly but you do have it in source form. Why not profile a few runs and try to speed it up as-is instead of trying to find another algorithm which might look similar but produce slightly different results, breaking the protocol? | |
| Apr 20, 2018 at 23:27 | answer | added | Johann Aydinbas | timeline score: 6 | |
| S Mar 19, 2017 at 15:50 | history | suggested | julian♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted "untagged" tag, added relevant tags
|
| Mar 19, 2017 at 14:49 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 19, 2017 at 15:50 | |||||
| Mar 19, 2017 at 12:34 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackReverseEng/status/843440519959248896 | ||
| Mar 19, 2017 at 12:01 | history | migrated | from crypto.stackexchange.com (revisions) | ||
| Mar 19, 2017 at 7:01 | comment | added | otus | Looks like it could be an obfuscated RIPEMD-128. The constants seem to match like 0x5C4E0000 - 0x2EDC = 0x5C4DD124 and 0x50A30000-0x741A = 0x50A28BE6. Ought to be easy to confirm. (Reverse engineering is off topic here, flagging for migration.) | |
| Mar 19, 2017 at 1:59 | comment | added | EmbeddedGuy | Richie: I placed the full function to: dropbox.com/sh/fjpxi11i2upby5g/AACClG20VAOsyfFnCG4geF-8a?dl=0 | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 9:11 | comment | added | Richie Frame | that code is an unoptimized mess, almost certainly not a standard, you should post a link to it complete as the commented block cannot possibly be repeated precisely | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 4:06 | comment | added | EmbeddedGuy | mhum: I added the end of the function as well | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 3:22 | comment | added | mhum | You haven't shown how the out_arr[] is populated in Hash16bytes(). Also, the constants that appear in your snippet (i.e.: 0xB12E8FB5, 0x7025BD47, 0xCCEE4EFE) don't appear in Google anywhere but in this question, which makes this puzzle a little challenging. I would infer that either: 1) this hash function is homegrown, 2) this is a keyed hash function and the constants somehow represent the key, or 3) this was code-generated and/or converted in a weird way. | |
| Mar 18, 2017 at 2:20 | history | asked | EmbeddedGuy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |