Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

SFV or MD5

Name: Aidan 2006-09-12 5:35

Recently I've decided that i should be making MD5 or SFV checksums for the files i burn to dvd, but im unsure of which one to go with? Are there any benefits in using either? Is one faster than the other?

Or if anyone has any other soloutions to make sure my files (mainly video files) arent corrupt, thanks.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 6:12

Use md5. It's cryptographically secure, and it's portable.

SFV uses CRC32. Enough said.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 6:39

>>2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5#Vulnerability

(not that this matters much for >>1's use case)

Name: Aidan 2006-09-12 6:42

Thanks guys, I think you've cleared it up for me. :P

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 6:51

>>3
Yeah, you're right, but you can't compare md5's weaknesses with CRC32.

Maybe "secure" was the wrong word to use.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 7:56

Use SHA1?

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 8:57

>>6
Believe it or not, SHA1 also has problems.

Apparently SHA2 is where it's at now. I haven't seen a sha2sum yet though.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 11:33

>>7
SHA-256 checksums are 64 bytes large!

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 11:40

If all you want to do is check for corrupt data, I'm pretty sure even crc32 would suffice.

Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 15:45 (sage)

>>8
256 / 8 = 32

Though the digest is shown as a 64 byte string (i.e. the 32 bytes denoted in hexadecimal)

SFV or MD5

1 Name: Aidan 2006-09-12 5:35

2 Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 6:12

3 Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 6:39

4 Name: Aidan 2006-09-12 6:42

5 Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 6:51

6 Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 7:56

7 Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 8:57

8 Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 11:33

9 Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 11:40

10 Name: Anonymous 2006-09-12 15:45 (sage)