How can one prove it's possible to have a sha1 checksum for a text that includes this same checksum?

How can one prove it's possible to have a sha1 checksum for a text that includes this same checksum?

If the string AERHIIKVD=6261651AA8595855D43DC4D9AEBB2F9CDDBF3E41$GE3UHBF had a sha1 checksum of 6261651AA8595855D43DC4D9AEBB2F9CDDBF3E41 then it would be in this language

If it's possible is it in P-SPACE?

Attached: Hypernova.jpg (560x560, 280.31K)

Other urls found in this thread:

To clarify if I want string "gas them all" to have its checksum included in its string, can finding that checksum be solved in P-SPACE?

google "hashquine"
or if you're autistic, use whatever other search engine it is that you use, but you know what I mean

Thanks lad I'm adequately turned on

Hopefully there's an algorithm besides trial and error behind this

check the md5 sum of this image

Attached: rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine.gif (512x128, 151.66K)

I investigated it and it looks like you need to discover collisions with whichever hash algorithm you use. Kind of cheating tbh

Using this technique I could manipulate any image,PDF,etc to be any hash

How would one produce the language of all md5 hasquine words?

It doesn't have to be proven if it's true by common sense.

Checksum will be displayed in hexadecimal, will they not? You have A-F to work with.

I mean technically hex is just another way to represent binary data, you can always convert the hex to ASCII if you really want
an md5 checksum is 128 bits
an ASCII character is 8 bits
therefore, you can convert an md5 sum into 16 ASCII characters

Use common sense to create a hasquine with sha512 then

I like how they used the dead hex on the "md5 is dead" text

Attached: md5_selfhash.gif (855x203, 83.6K)

Considering a SHA-1 hash is smaller than the input it would be possible.

Doesn't work.

Attached: nope.png (1506x497, 89.99K)

True, but it doesn't have the same effect when you have to explain to people there's a hidden message they have to go out of their way to view.

probably not md5 then
there are other hashing algorithms, after all

pajeet pls

Attached: nigger.PNG (1558x513, 212.78K)

Hmm that's weird. Why does 8ch sometimes serve me the (correct) 85.6kB file but at other times a 84.5kB file?

Attached: hmm.png (1238x416, 73.36K)

No idea. That is pretty strange.

For any checksum there exists an infinite amount of inputs that will give that checksum.
For all operations whose return is always different to the input there exists no way to reach an input that cannot be transformed to reach an input of any checksum. (divide by 2 & round up vs multiply by 2)
One such operation is appending 'a'.
As such you can start with a desired string and append 'a' until you reach a suitable hash.

If you could calculate this without guessing randomly it would mean you've broken the hashing algorithm, as it's not useful from a security standpoint if you can manipulate arbitrary input to produce any hash you want in reasonable time.

Thanks, needed this for an autist

I figured it out. When you save the image with the original filename, you get the original file. When you save it with the hashed filename it changes it.

I saved all 3 versions. Nothing special seen.
$md5sum rog*bee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-8chrenderedfile.gifbee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine.gifbee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-inlineimage.gif

Mine is 22d058dd8aad588cadeadf33e6c9977e

Are you sure no one's MiTMing your connections? Might be some kind of ISP-side compression or fingerprinting.

>(((Zig Forums)))
More like glowerchan. Fucking CIA niggs

Same thing for
My hashes match the pajeet's in
md5sum md5_selfhash*be31b3d72cdb66d6e217e5eb46e0f35b md5_selfhash-8ch.gifbe31b3d72cdb66d6e217e5eb46e0f35b md5_selfhash.gifbe31b3d72cdb66d6e217e5eb46e0f35b md5_selfhash-inline.gif

I think the shard theory of this board is confirmed. See thread

Glowniggers on the wire. GOLF-OSCAR--DELTA-ALPHA-ROMEO-KILO

mine is also bee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7

$md5sum md5_selfhash*be31b3d72cdb66d6e217e5eb46e0f35b md5_selfhash-8ch.gifbe31b3d72cdb66d6e217e5eb46e0f35b md5_selfhash.gifbe31b3d72cdb66d6e217e5eb46e0f35b md5_selfhash-inline.giff5ca4f935d44b85c431a8bf788c0eaca md5_selfhash-torclearnet.gif

Attached: terrydavisscience.png (479x715, 462.73K)

Download it through Tor.
It will be different. I just confirmed
Glowniggers on the wire lads. Terry warned us. Stay safe. Merry glowless Christmas.
$time $(set grid off)

images are put through imagemagick here before being stored -- at least the board code I saw years ago did.
You're going to have to upload the image somewhere like 0x0


Images downloaded through the clearnet 8ch have not had correct hashes for years. There was a thread about it on /sudo/ ages ago and I believe codemonkey's official excuse was Cloudflare caching, but who knows. Last time I experimented with it, you could get the correct hash if you are the first person to view an image and every time after that it will be wrong.

Thanks for confirming the tracking technology, glownigger.

Total fucking bullshit, and you know it glowie. Why?
Normal download - file hash different.
Tor download - file hash correct.

More tests. Done through normal clearnet.

# wget ""# wget ""# md5sum *bee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 434a8ff854d0ce25f84e8eebd10226fc0ed8c3905f71196ac97295727f86bca3.gifbee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine.gif
Same result if I use curl. But if I download using KDE's kio by drag-and-droping to a folder I get 2 different files for the sha256 name and original file name.
# md5sum *bee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 434a8ff854d0ce25f84e8eebd10226fc0ed8c3905f71196ac97295727f86bca3.gif22d058dd8aad588cadeadf33e6c9977e rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine.gif# sha256sum * 3c691482657db2269ec67a6267a83b76118acbb0337b2278f65d432fec77a7b6 434a8ff854d0ce25f84e8eebd10226fc0ed8c3905f71196ac97295727f86bca3.gif434a8ff854d0ce25f84e8eebd10226fc0ed8c3905f71196ac97295727f86bca3 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine.gif# stat * File: 434a8ff854d0ce25f84e8eebd10226fc0ed8c3905f71196ac97295727f86bca3.gif Size: 154911 Blocks: 304 IO Block: 4096 regular fileDevice: 32h/50d Inode: 1178618 Links: 1Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: ( 1000/ andrew) Gid: ( 1000/ andrew)Access: 2018-12-26 00:02:51.829046722 +1100Modify: 2106-02-07 17:28:15.000000000 +1100Change: 2018-12-25 23:54:38.955634217 +1100 Birth: - File: rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine.gif Size: 155301 Blocks: 304 IO Block: 4096 regular fileDevice: 32h/50d Inode: 1179204 Links: 1Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: ( 1000/ andrew) Gid: ( 1000/ andrew)Access: 2018-12-26 00:02:51.829046722 +1100Modify: 2106-02-07 17:28:15.000000000 +1100Change: 2018-12-25 23:54:36.282318645 +1100 Birth: -

Sanity check, I download the pajeet's screen cap with kio.
# md5sum *513ce3cf6c684508e45db1b248b8d435 7c797a58244f4a5786046f873421a5aecdbc23556a888bd9dc79dd3e51f4c53c.png4dbfe73bf7bc295951857e2b4cc4d2dc nope.png# stat * File: 7c797a58244f4a5786046f873421a5aecdbc23556a888bd9dc79dd3e51f4c53c.png Size: 71145 Blocks: 144 IO Block: 4096 regular fileDevice: 32h/50d Inode: 1192116 Links: 1Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: ( 1000/ andrew) Gid: ( 1000/ andrew)Access: 2018-12-26 00:06:53.947457713 +1100Modify: 2106-02-07 17:28:15.000000000 +1100Change: 2018-12-26 00:06:37.667564440 +1100 Birth: - File: nope.png Size: 92153 Blocks: 184 IO Block: 4096 regular fileDevice: 32h/50d Inode: 1187728 Links: 1Access: (0644/-rw-r--r--) Uid: ( 1000/ andrew) Gid: ( 1000/ andrew)Access: 2018-12-26 00:06:53.947457713 +1100Modify: 2106-02-07 17:28:15.000000000 +1100Change: 2018-12-26 00:06:41.730871135 +1100 Birth: -
Something made the file smaller. Cloudflare fuckery or something else?
compare 7d5a1da69ca03d4efaa2726e6385bd9d9dcba347e62a66d3db1d3ee431e6f11a.png hmm.png -compose src diff.png
No difference in the image itself.

What does kio do/not do that makes it partially immune?
Is the Tor download correct for both sha and original files?
Other command line download clients need to be tested, and this test needs to be verified.

Then why do I get error "file already exists" when I try to upload this file to a Zig Forums thread? (I downloaded it from a different Zig Forums thread)
But if I change the image in any way, then I can upload the new version. Clearly they're using hashes and rejecting it when it already exists. Which is kind of dumb, since they should accept it and just use the copy already on disk, instead of rejecting it.

Attached: pepe yellow vest.jpg (776x1002, 159.93K)

That's dependent on the board settings.
Zig Forums only allows one copy of a file on the board. Once the thread with it expires you could repost it.
Other boards will only allow one post of the file in a thread, and some others won't care how many times you post the same image.

Only the original file link via Tor clearnet leads to the original file!
Not even the Tor .onion links lead to the original! I downloaded the original file via the Tor clearnet again to confirm.
$md5sum rog*bee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-8chrenderedfile.gifbee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine.gifbee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-inlineimage.gifbee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-torclearnet-8ch-rendered.gif22d058dd8aad588cadeadf33e6c9977e rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-torclearnet.gifbee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-torclearnet-inline.gif22d058dd8aad588cadeadf33e6c9977e rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-torclearnet-original-redownloaded.gifbee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-toronion-8ch-rendered.gifbee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-toronion-inline.gifbee2d0dd6280078778e3ba87e51079d7 rogdham_gif_md5_hashquine-toronion-original.gif

I forgot to post the link:
The setting in the .json is:
image_reject_repost true

Fuck cloudflare and fuck jewish people

based have a bump

Yup. MD5 is be31b3d72cdb66d6e217e5eb46e0f35b. Probably due to cuckflare messing with the file though.

Does 8ch onion use cloudflare

i don't think they offer their service to onion sites

Onion is fucked too. See
The files from the 8ch onion site via Tor ALL give the wrong MD5 hash!
It is ONLY the 8ch clearnet site via Tor gives the original file with the CORRECT MD5 hash.

Maybe that's why they ban tor posting on
The onion allows tor posting. Not

If you are Tor user they will put tor-user-id into file that you saved
then if you EVER upload same file in clearnet, they will use it to deanonymize your tor session from when you saved that file

Or it's Zig Forums doing that, because Zig Forums is CIA and mossad honeypot

big if true

no they don't lmao, they just use some sort of tool to optimize images to reduce their operating costs

uncompressed image = more bandwidth used = higher operating costs for cloudflare = less profit for spending on hookers and cocaine

99% of the time, people just want to make money

cash rules everything around me, CREAM, get the money, dolla dolla bill y'all

instead of thinking everything is a vast and expensive conspiracy, understand that most people are just trying to get that paper

Hi andrew, you are a faggot. Also where are you getting the link for the original filename? I can't find the original for OP's image via tor, clearnet/vpn, and or tor with clearnet.

So where is the fingerprint in the image then? Faggot andrew here exiffile'd the image and the contents of such a thing are not there. You sure its not just cloudcuck auto compressing images on the fly for popular/busy cdn's used by it? I remember codemonkey on >>>/sudo/ making mention of cloudfare doing this a while back. He tried turning it off to no avail however it seems. T.posting via tor because faggotry avoidence at max settings, I don't get the original image link for OP's image via this method/exit point. Which leads me to believe that the compression is dependent on the CDN/location used to post. But that the onion site auto serves the compressed image via cloudfare's

You are a nigger. Get out or make a technically valid arguement against their idea of why or how 8ch sometimes serves the original image or the optimized/tagged image.

Oh its morse code for merry christmas.

I think they're trying to fuck steghide/steganography applications by modifying cover files which are uploaded. With steghide, you can have shadow conversations in images in a thread. Dank OC you save could contain cp if it was embedded into the OC and you knew the password.

If it doesn't affect image pixels, then this is just imitation of protection. I remember many steganography programs (including imageboard-centric, such as DesuDesuTalk and Nanoboard) embedding their data in the image itself.