11–20 of 24 posts
Neat! Melons and spruces! This almost triggers my Stack Overflow-honed reflexes to go on a huge rant about the fact that there are no "hex bytes" anywhere in your computer. But I guess the OP's author really does know that, and is just being colloqial. Still, it seems to create a lot of confusion among beginning programmers, so it's a somewhat unfortunate way of expressing things, in my opinion.
The mapping of only one byte to one symbol results in too many symbols in one fingerprint. Using more than 8 bits per symbol would result in something much easier to recognize. The goal should be "staple battery horse" and not "p k b t v r m n z x t c." Was my key "p k t b t v r m n z x t c" or was it "p t k b t v r n m z x t c," who can see the difference? However another danger is all the emoji that look too simila…
Knowing minor differences is likely to be unimportant. This really only matters if an attacker is able to generate a key with almost the same fingerprint. AFAIK, there is no way to do this. I do agree though that the string of emoji is still hard to memorize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Knowing minor differences is likely to be unimportant. This really only matters if an attacker is able to generate a key with almost the same fingerprint. AFAIK, there is no way to do this. I do agree though that the string of emoji is still hard to memorize.
Almostness reduces the brute-forcing effort. It's not something to be hand-waved, programming to bruteforce just until it's "good enough" is easy. Once somebody learns that he doesn't have to carefully check the signature he won't check at all. The goal is to have as little to check as reasonable, but to check thoroughly.
Neat! Melons and spruces! This almost triggers my Stack Overflow-honed reflexes to go on a huge rant about the fact that there are no "hex bytes" anywhere in your computer. But I guess the OP's author really does know that, and is just being colloqial. Still, it seems to create a lot of confusion among beginning programmers, so it's a somewhat unfortunate way of expressing things, in my opinion.
It's meant as a shorthand for "hex-encoded bytes".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm confused. What you mean is that all bytes are hex bytes if you choose to look at them in hex, right?
No bytes are hex bytes. Bytes are bytes. You can display them however you like, even one byte as one emoji (what I argue to be too inconvenient representation in another message). But they are also not "emoji bytes." They are just bytes. As in "octets of bits," bit being a unit of information. And hystorically, the bytes weren't even necessarily octets, but some other group of bits.
The mapping of only one byte to one symbol results in too many symbols in one fingerprint. Using more than 8 bits per symbol would result in something much easier to recognize. The goal should be "staple battery horse" and not "p k b t v r m n z x t c." Was my key "p k t b t v r m n z x t c" or was it "p t k b t v r n m z x t c," who can see the difference? However another danger is all the emoji that look too simila…
For the more general case of analyzing binary data, I could see something like this being useful for other tasks such as visualizing network traffic, or analyzing logs. Basically finding some way to transform the data into an optimal form for human pattern recognition.
Neat! Melons and spruces! This almost triggers my Stack Overflow-honed reflexes to go on a huge rant about the fact that there are no "hex bytes" anywhere in your computer. But I guess the OP's author really does know that, and is just being colloqial. Still, it seems to create a lot of confusion among beginning programmers, so it's a somewhat unfortunate way of expressing things, in my opinion.
I'm confused. What you mean is that all bytes are hex bytes if you choose to look at them in hex, right?
