Anonymous user
Talk:MD5: Difference between revisions
pseudocode note
(Most entries for this task should be marked wrong or needing improvement) |
(pseudocode note) |
||
Line 6:
:This really should be a task to encode the algorithm. There are other tasks that demonstrate calling functions and external routines. I thing the original task description intended this, unfortunately they didn't say it clearly. I really do think all of the tasks not in the spirit should be marked as needing improvement if not as outright incorrect. However, since they've been allowed to sit for so long marking for improvement is probably enough. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 03:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
:If an implementation of the task uses a native library then the code should be included here or excerpted (rather than just an offsite link as has been observed before) --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 04:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
==Shouldn't this be...==
...in a "Hashing" category, not encryption. The MD5 algorithm, although related to cryptography, is not an encryption function. The output of the MD5 function can not decrypted to yield the original plain text given an arbitrary cipher text (a.k.a hash).
==Pseudo Code is not enough ==
Just attempting to code this from the pseudo-code is likely to result in a number of errors. The reference code in the RFC is clearer. Also the task should include validating your implementation with the test values from the RFC. Some of these will break implementations if you don't get your padding just right. At this point this would likely have to be optional. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 04:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
| |||