Skip to main content
Cryptography

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

2
  • $\begingroup$ This problem can be avoided if we use a emulating software that automatically creates a fixed size circuit for 1-bit and checks it, then 2 bits, and so on. (A kind of brute force for the length of input. It should be able to stop at 30 bytes, because even the strongest passwords are not 30 chars long) $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 5:13
  • $\begingroup$ You understood something wrong there. You can't just suppose that you can handle 1 bit of input, then 2 and so on, in the reverse design. Anyway, it still stands that you can not throw away information, and the function is highly nonlinear. Even if you can set up the gates for a single input block, the number of gates and trash bits in the out will be way too high. Two basic examples in pseudo-code, where you create extra trash bits (which will carry through to the end): "a=a+b;" and "int i= 0" ... "i=1". $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 14:51