Le quintidi 5 ventôse, an CCXXIV, Seeker a écrit : > If you take security out of the equation, simple true or false. > > 1. A corrupted download is better able to be detected when using MD5 than it > is with CRC32. > > 2. A corrupted download is better able to be detected when using SHA than it > is with MD5. Obviously, for random alterations, the larger the hash, the less likely a corruption is. > If I have extra reason to suspect corruption might occur I definitely want > to use the most capable option for detecting that. Then I suggest you download your file a thousand times and compare them, and redo the whole downloads if any of the copies is different from the others. Impractical? Yes, of course. The problem lies with your statement of the situation: you use a single metric, the odds of a corrupted download, instead of at least two, including the cost of the checks.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature