Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Finding MD5 Collisions With Chinese Lottery

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the soon-to-be-distributed-slashdotting dept.

Encryption 303

Stanislav Shalunov writes "Jean-Luc Cooke posted a Usenet article describing a distributed webpage-based effort (Chinese Lottery) to find a collision in the MD5 function. All you need to do to participate in the effort is visit the URL that loads the code. The author comments: 'What is interesting about this approach - when we reach final release stage - is that any website that adds this small snippet of code to their pages will have their visitors working on the problem for the duration of their visit to the site'."

cancel ×

303 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The Logic of Withdrawal (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849457)

[A note of explanation: In the spring of 1967, my book Vietnam: The Logic of Withdrawal was published by Beacon Press. It was the first book on the war to call for immediate withdrawal, no conditions. Many liberals were saying: "Yes, we should leave Vietnam, but President Johnson can't just do it; it would be very hard to explain to the American people." My response, in the last chapter of my book, was to write a speech for Lyndon Johnson, explaining to the American people why he was ordering the immediate evacuation of American armed forces from Vietnam. No, Johnson did not make that speech, and the war went on. But I am undaunted, and willing to make my second attempt at speech writing. This time, I am writing a speech for whichever candidate emerges as Democratic Party nominee for President. My supposition is that the nation is ready for an all-out challenge to the Bush Administration, for its war policy and its assault on the well-being of the American people. And only such a forthright, courageous approach to the nation can win the election and save us from another four years of an Administration that is reckless with American lives and American values.]

My fellow Americans, I ask for your vote for President because I believe we are at a point in the history of our country where we have a serious decision to make. That decision will deeply affect not only our lives, but also the lives of our children and grandchildren.

At this moment in our nation's history, we are on a very dangerous course. We can remain on that course, or we can turn onto a bold new path to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, which guarantees everyone an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The danger we are in today is that the war--a war without any foreseeable end--is not only taking the lives of our young but exhausting the great wealth of our nation. That wealth could be used to create prosperity for every American but is now being squandered on military interventions abroad that have nothing to do with making us more secure.

We should listen carefully to the men serving in this war.

Tim Predmore is a five-year veteran of the army. He is just finishing his tour of duty in Iraq. He writes: "We have all faced death in Iraq without reason or justification. How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before Americans awake and demand the return of the men and women whose job it is to protect them rather than their leader's interest?"

What is national security? This Administration defines national security as sending our young men and women around the world to wage war on country after country--none of them strong enough to threaten us. I define national security as making sure every American has health care, employment, decent housing, a clean environment. I define national security as taking care of our people who are losing jobs, taking care of our senior citizens, taking care of our children.

Our current military budget is $400 billion a year, the largest in our history, larger even than when we were in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. And now we will be spending an additional $87 billion for the war in Iraq. At the same time, we are told that the government has cut funds for health care, education, the environment, and even school lunches for children. Most shocking of all is the cut, in billions of dollars, for veterans' benefits.

If I became President, I would immediately begin to use the great wealth of our nation to provide those things, which represent true security.

Immediately on taking office, I would propose to Congress, and use all my power to ensure that this legislation passes, that we institute a brand new health care system, one that builds on the success of our Medicare program, and that has been used effectively in other countries in the world.

I would call it Health Security, because it would guarantee to every man, woman, and child free medical care, including prescription drugs, paid for out of the general treasury, like the free medical care for members of Congress, and for members of our armed services. This would save billions of dollars wasted today in administrative costs, profits for insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms, huge salaries for CEOs of private medical plans. There would be no paperwork for the patient, and no worries about whether any medical condition, any medical emergency, would be covered. No worry that losing your job would mean an end to your medical insurance.

I would do something else immediately on taking office. I would ask Congress for a Full Employment Act, guaranteeing jobs to anyone who is willing to work. We would give the private sector all the opportunity to provide work, but where it fails to do so, the government would become the employer of last resort. We would use as a model the great social programs of the New Deal, when millions of people were given jobs after the private sector had failed to do so.

I would also take steps to reverse the attacks on our environment by the Bush Administration, which has been more concerned for the profits of large corporations than for the air, land, and water we depend on. In December of 2002, it relaxed its pollution standards for antiquated coal-fired power plants in the Midwest, and those emissions cause hundreds of premature deaths each year. It has refused to sign the Kyoto agreement on global warming, though climate change is an enormous peril to the coming generations. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency in January of 2003 refused to order a nuclear reactor closed though its lid had rusted nearly all the way through, because, according to an internal commission report, the agency did not want to impose unnecessary costs on the owner and was reluctant to give the industry a black eye.

This Administration has done nothing to stop the emissions from the chemical plants all over the country, and it has stored chemical weapons in areas where residents have become sick as a result. In April of 2003, Darline Stephens of Anniston, Alabama, told a journalist: "I live five or ten miles from chemical weapons. We're over there searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we have them here in our hometown."

The Bush Presidency has sacrificed the cause of clean air and clean water because it has ties to the automobile industry, the oil industry, the chemical industry, and other great commercial enterprises. I would insist on regulating those industries in order to save the environment for us, our children, our grandchildren.

A decision must be made, and I promise to make it. We cannot have Health Security, or job security, or a decent environment, unless we decide we will no longer be a nation that sends its military everywhere in the world against nations that pose no threat to us.

We have already lost 400 lives in Iraq. Over 2,000 of our young have been wounded, some of them so seriously that the word "wounded" does not convey the reality.

Robert Acosta is twenty years old. He has lost his right hand and part of his forearm.

Twenty-one-year-old Edward Platt has had his leg amputated above the knee.

The entertainer Cher, visiting the Walter Reed Hospital in Washington, called in to a television program, saying, "As I walked into the hospital the first person I ran into was a boy about nineteen or twenty years old who'd lost both of his arms. . . . And when I walked into the hospital and visited all these boys all day long . . . everyone had lost either one arm . . . or two limbs. . . . I just think that if there was no reason for this war, this was the most heinous thing I'd ever seen. . . . I go all over the world and I must say that the news we get in America has nothing to do with the news that you get outside of this country."

The families of those who have died in this war are asking questions which this Administration cannot answer. I read recently about the mother of Captain Tristan Aitken, who was thirty-one years old, and died in combat in Iraq. She said about her son: "He was doing his job. He had no choice, and I'm proud of who he was. But it makes me mad that this whole war was sold to the American public and to the soldiers as something it wasn't. Our forces have been convinced that Iraqis were responsible for September 11, and that's not true."

This mother has it right. Americans were led into war, being told again and again by the highest officials of government, including the President, that it was absolutely necessary. But we now know that we were deceived. We were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that were a danger to us and the world. These weapons, despite enormous efforts by both an international team and our own government's investigative body, have not been found.

Virtually every nation in the world, and public opinion all over the planet, believed we should not go to war. Countries much closer to Iraq than ours did not feel threatened, so why should the United States--with its enormous arsenal of nuclear weapons and with its warships on every sea--have felt threatened?

Common sense should have told us that Iraq, devastated by two wars (first with Iran, then with our country) and then ruined by ten years of economic sanctions, could not be a threat sufficient to justify war. But that common sense did not exist in Washington, either in the White House, which demanded war, or in Congress, which rushed to approve war. We now know that decision was wrong and that the President of the United States and the people around him were not telling us the truth.

As a result of believing the President, we went to war in violation of the United Nations Charter, in defiance of public opinion all over the world, and thus in a single move placed ourselves outside the family of nations and destroyed the goodwill that so many people everywhere had toward our country.

On September 11, 2001, a terrorist attack in New York and Washington took close to 3,000 lives. The Bush Administration has used that tragic event as an excuse to go to war, first in Afghanistan and now in Iraq. But neither war has made us safer from terrorism. The Bush Administration lied to the American people about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, when even the CIA has not been able to find such a connection.

Indeed, by its killing of thousands of people in both countries, the Bush Administration has inflamed millions of people in the Middle East against us and increased the ranks of the terrorists.

The Iraqi people are happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein, but now they want to be rid of us. They do not want our military to occupy their country. If we believe in self-determination, in the freedom of the Iraqis to choose their own way of life, we should listen to their pleas, leave their country, and allow them to work out their own affairs.

I would, therefore, as President, call for an orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. I would remove our troops from elsewhere in the Middle East. Only the oil interests benefit from that military presence.

I am proposing a fundamental change in the foreign policy of our country. This Administration believes that we, as the most powerful nation in the world, should use that power to establish military bases all over the world, to control the oil of the Middle East, to determine the destinies of other countries.

I believe that we should use our great power not for military purposes but to bring food and medicine to those areas of the world that have been devastated by war, by disease, by hunger. If we took a fraction of our military budget we could combat malaria, tuberculosis, and AIDS. We could provide clean water for the billion people in the world who don't have it and would save millions of lives. That would be an accomplishment we could be proud of. But how proud can we be of military victories over weak nations, in which we overthrow dictators but at the same time bomb and kill the people who are the victims of these dictators? And the tyrants we overthrow are very often the ones we have helped stay in power, like the Taliban in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

We are at a turning point in the history of our nation. We can go on being a great military power, engaging in war after war, in which innocent people abroad and our own men and women die or are crippled for life. Or we can become a peaceful nation, always ready to defend ourselves, but not sending our troops and planes all over the world for the benefit of the oil interests and the other great corporations that profit from war.

We can choose to use the wealth of our nation and the talents of our people for war, or we can use that wealth and talent to better the lives of men, women, and children in this country. We can continue being the target of anger and terrorism and indignation by the rest of the world, or we can be a model of what a good society should be like, peaceful in the world, prosperous at home.

The choice will come in the ballot box. I ask you to choose for the peace of the world, and the security of the American people.
-
Howard Zinn, the author of "A People's History of the United States," is a columnist for The Progressive.

An Important Warning (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849567)

Mad Troll Disease is a fatal disease that has reached near-epidemic proportions. It is caused by failure to pay your $699 licensing fee to SCO. Please protect your health and don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee.

See ya in Gitmo ya Commie Bastard (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849572)

We'll start heating the pliers now faggot.

Re:See ya in Gitmo ya Commie Bastard (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849651)

Why, is your mom visiting?

How do I add this to my site? (-1)

Kyle Hamilton (692554) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849462)

Where do I get the stuff to add this to my site I think that maybe if you made it easy to put on peoples blogs then maybe it would add a lot of power to the project/idea -Kyle www.kylehamilton.net

Re:How do I add this to my site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849494)

Dude. Spelling. Runon sentences. Work on them. You deserve to appear smarter than you do.

Re:How do I add this to my site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849520)

Runon sentences.

Fragements too?

Re:How do I add this to my site? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849620)

Dude. I'm assuming you meant run-on, in which case you have a sentence consisting of two nouns and nothing else. Apparently your judgment of smartness is authoritative.

Re:How do I add this to my site? (2, Informative)

coene (554338) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849495)

Just embed the applet into your HTML, view the source of that page - you'll get it.

Good idea accept its Java. (1)

JPriest (547211) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849808)

... and it would take less time to do with a punch card reader.

another writeup (-1, Troll)

the man with the pla (710711) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849465)

I saw a story about this a few days ago over at tubgirl tech archive [tubgirl.com]

Re:another writeup (-1, Troll)

Stalin (13415) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849488)

No clicky clicky. Nasty nasty.

OFFTOPIC (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849527)

n/t

fucking troll (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849595)

FREAKING MORRON!!!

you're supposed to put n/t in the title. N/T means NO TEXT so people with dialup LIKE ME don't have to waste time loading your stupid comment to see why you said its offtopic only to see NT!!!

Re:fucking troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849743)

The extra 'R' you put in 'moron' slowed me down too, ya idiot.

An Important Warning... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849466)

Mad Troll Disease is a fatal disease that has reached near-epidemic proportions. It is caused by failure to pay your $699 licensing fee to SCO. Please protect your health and don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee.

Uhh.. (5, Insightful)

TCM (130219) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849470)

From the link:

You run an Applet, it reports to us the search results. Distributed computing without installing anything...and without people knowing you're stealing their idle CPU time. ;)

I don't know about you but I wouldn't lean out the window with the fact that I'm stealing from others.

Idle CPU time might be unused but I still want to know what my box is doing and why.

Re:Uhh.. (1)

shamilton (619422) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849633)

Idle CPU cycles are used to pre-zero pages, among other little tasks.

Re:Uhh.. (4, Insightful)

Phillup (317168) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849662)

I personally wouldn't call it "stealing". You pretty much agreed to run Java. Yes, you could be a clueless noob and knot *know* that your browser has it enabled... but, nobody is *making* you run java applets.

I don't shove it down your pipe... you ask for it.

Of course this line of reasoning could be extended too far... like the case of all the porn pop-ups... but, even there... I tend to feel that the user is ultimately in control (or should be!) of their own computer. Install Mozilla and don't suffer the pop-ups.

Better yet... and this is the approach I myself practice... go away. Any time I find a site that ticks me off (bad Java/JavaScript that causes browser naughtiness), I add them to my banned list on my proxy... and never have to suffer the site again.

Not even unintentionally.

---

Not only that... but my CPU monitor went to a hundred percent.

Yeah, it is a low priority thread... but... I did notice.

P.S. "you" does not mean you personally...

Oh, lovely, distributed Javascript computing (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849474)

Perhaps we could tie this to some sort of micropayment system. You come do distributed work on my website, and you get to view it. Some third party pays me for the cycles, and I have a new revenue stream!

Re:Oh, lovely, distributed Javascript computing (3, Insightful)

illustir (92508) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849564)

Why don't the slashdot editors who put this online embed the code in the story page? That way the slashdotting would have some use at least.

Re:Oh, lovely, distributed Javascript computing (1)

trb (8509) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849806)

Why don't the slashdot editors who put this online embed the code in the story page?

Maybe this slashdot article was a winner (encrypted) phoning home.

Re:Oh, lovely, distributed Javascript computing (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849575)

Java too!

Re:Oh, lovely, distributed Javascript computing (2, Informative)

sinistral (80451) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849805)

It's not JavaScript, it's Java. Despite the names, they're vastly different.

Are there any known MD5 collisions today? (2, Interesting)

GGardner (97375) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849478)

Last time I looked into this, which was several years ago, there were no known different strings which had the same MD5 hash. I thought this was remarkable. Are there any known ones today?

Re:Are there any known MD5 collisions today? (4, Funny)

mattdm (1931) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849500)

Well, if there were, that'd make the question this project is trying to answer remarkably easy.

Re:Are there any known MD5 collisions today? (1)

Jordy (440) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849754)

Considering there are an infinite number of strings that will map to a single MD5, I'd say there is a chance we'll find one sooner or later.

Re:Are there any known MD5 collisions today? (1)

More Karma Than God (643953) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849759)

There must be some, otherwise MD5 could be used for lossless compression.

That's assuming the process can be reversed.

Re:Are there any known MD5 collisions today? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849796)

An md5 sum 20 bytes long.
If one applies md5 to all possible 21-byte strings, then there must be at least one collision.

Re:Are there any known MD5 collisions today? (2, Interesting)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849816)

more accurate to say it's very unlikely two string have same md5 value - but raise two to the power of the number of bits in an md5 hash, and there's at least that probability that two strings will have same hash. Of course, question is with real world strings is it even more likely than that huge 1:n number that 2 will match??? Hence this project, which I don't think is ethical or good way to find out.

THE CHINESE HAVE OVERTAKEN SLASHDOT! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849481)



OMG Slanty Slashdot has the purple pussy!

Would be great for LOTR (1)

t0qer (230538) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849490)

Or any other movie that makes heavy use of CG. While fans are visiting the fan site, they'll be helping to produce the sequel.

Might be cheaper than render farms.

Re:Would be great for LOTR (3, Insightful)

deadsaijinx* (637410) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849555)

Have you ever tried even using a dedicated renderfarm? The complications that can arise if you don't have all the textures and files locally, not to mention the fact that rendering is so heavy a tax on the CPU people would NEVER want to do it. Plus, that would involve them releasing files that go into making the movie. And so on and so forth, The idea is so terrible I couldn't imagine anyone ever trying it. Peace out and try to talk about something you konw for once.

Re:Would be great for LOTR (2, Insightful)

gordyf (23004) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849562)

No, it would take too long just to upload the scene data to the client, let alone render anything useful within the average person's attention span.

really bad idea for real system administrators (-1)

the man with the pla (710711) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849492)

Hopefully I don't have to tell the 30 percent of slashdot readers who actually do unix system administration that this is a terrible idea to add this to your web sites. Distributed computing is fine for client boxes, but for servers...if your server wants to implement any extra complication and/or CPU, you're doing something wrong.

--
Gain karma with the database tool [anti-slash.org]

Re:really bad idea for real system administrators (1)

MoonFog (586818) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849523)

It's an applet, applets run on the clients computer and not on the server.

Re:really bad idea for real system administrators (1)

Magic5Ball (188725) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849698)

It's an applet, applets run on the clients computer and not on the server.

It takes bandwidth to collect the results of the applets' work, and time on the same or a different server to record/process/log those results.

Re:really bad idea for real system administrators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849536)

if your server wants to implement any extra complication and/or CPU, you're doing something wrong.

The work is done by the clients, genius. A java applet is downloaded to their client and it does some computation.

Re:really bad idea for real system administrators (1)

Fnord (1756) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849551)

This doesn't do anything on servers. He's referring to websites putting a link to a java appplet in their pages. This applet does computations on the client side.

nonono-it *does* tax the servers.. (2, Insightful)

Darth Fredd (663620) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849776)

..some. You use bandwidth for data throughput, you have the CPU usage..

All on the server side. Yes, the clients are the ones doing the Real Work, but you have to do something with the result of that work. And its the Doing that taxes your servers, if only a little bit.

Re:really bad idea for real system administrators (1)

fcrick (465682) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849579)

The applet refers to the project's server, not your web server. I don't think they are asking you to host the data collection part, but rather just have your pages load the applet from their servers.

Re:really bad idea for real system administrators (1)

benna (614220) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849599)

Actually applets are not allowed to open an internet connection to anywhere except where they came from so the data collection server must also be the web server.

Re:really bad idea for real system administrators (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849616)

Read, you fucking moron.

but rather just have your pages load the applet from their servers

Re:really bad idea for real system administrators (1)

benna (614220) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849660)

Oh, I understand now.

Re:really bad idea for real system administrators (2, Informative)

focitrixilous P (690813) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849711)

Dude. Do you want to know the tax on your server? 3 lines of simple HTML. That doesn't sound like much of an extra complication, or CPU usage. Even the tiny applet is loaded off Their Server, meaning you do nearly no work to help these guys. You can debate the ethics, sure, but saying this is a mistake because of server issues is wrong.

That's really interesting... (5, Informative)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849497)

That's a really interesting way of doing it. For the people who don't know, here's a quick explanation:

Java Applets, because of the sandbox they're run in, can't open up a network connection to any website, except for the websie they came from. Presumably, what they're doing is creating a small Java applet, that when loaded, executes some logic, then opens up a network connection back home and sends the results.

Fascinating. This way, you don't have to bother installing something and hope it doesn't fsck up your computer. It might be slightly less efficient than a dedicated, installed program, but this way, they can harness the power of a computer just casually browsing a web page. Very innovative.

Re:That's really interesting... (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849560)

Fascinating. This way, you don't have to bother installing something and hope it doesn't fsck up your computer. It might be slightly less efficient than a dedicated, installed program, but this way, they can harness the power of a computer just casually browsing a web page. Very innovative.

Right. Now you visit a web page and hope it doesn't fsck up your web browser. Fun.

Re:That's really interesting... (2, Interesting)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849591)

It's run in a sandbox, and the sandbox is pretty restrictive. No writing to the hard drive, no network access other than connecting back to the website the applet came from, a requirement that all applet created windows have a "WARNING: APPLET WINDOW" box on the bottom, etc. And the process of signing an applet is downright screwy and often doesn't work for all platforms.

Re:That's really interesting... (1)

jkcity (577735) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849829)

it can store data on your hard drive using cookies though.

Re:That's really interesting... (1)

rob_from_ca (118788) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849561)

Not only that, but using a java applet sandbox very effectively solves the trust problem in distributed computing; the whole "I'm not going to run it if I can't build it from source myself and audit the code" on the side of the client and the "We need to distribute binary only or people will make modified versions and corrupt our results" side of the project owners.

Good idea. Not a great idea to drop on generic webpages and force people to participate in order to view the page though.

Re:That's really interesting... (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849684)

Does it solve the problem, or just work around it? I mean, people might have various reasons not to run a program on their machine, and privacy concerns might be one of them. With this system apparently reporting data to a central server no matter what site the applet is installed on, there are a multitude of privacy concerns, and that is certainly high on list of concerns for the audit-and-build-it-myself set.

Re:That's really interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849785)

Nah, if I could be bothered I'd just alter one of the open source JVMs to interfere. The java secruity model protects the end user (to an extent, assuming the JVM security is perfect), not the project owner. You need Treacherous^WRrusted Computing to give the project owner some reassurance I haven't hacked my JVM, and even then there are ways around it.

Re:That's really interesting... (1)

TCM (130219) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849597)

This way, you don't have to bother installing something and hope it doesn't fsck up your computer.

Last time I checked Mozilla didn't come with a JVM.

Re:That's really interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849622)

Hopefully benefical projects like Folding@Home [stanford.edu] will get in on this idea.

Maybe each sites opening page will contain something like "Help out such and such project while browsing this site, click here or standard site click here"

Hmmm. (1, Funny)

valkraider (611225) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849502)

Imagine a Beowolf cluster of these things... It would be the same as if Slashdot put the applet in the header or something - all of us geeks computing stuff for free... That would be a lot of computing, I think a couple people visit slashdot daily!

Re:Hmmm. (1)

RetroGeek (206522) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849627)

Imagine a Beowolf cluster of these things

But in effect that is what this is. So no imagination required.....

Re:Hmmm. (5, Insightful)

whysanity (231556) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849712)

I wonder if the good slashdot people would be willing to make this into a slashbox ?

Whoever made this... (2, Interesting)

coene (554338) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849514)

Make sure to take out the warning message "ok fine then, you don't want cookies..." that pops up when you disallow it yer cookies (buy yer own thx!). This was surely a debug message, it's not useful anymore ;)

Re:Whoever made this... (1)

speeDDemon (nw) (643987) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849554)

Look in the code urselves ppl, Not sure about the JAVA backend that its running in that lil IFRAME window, But the javascript is simple and straight forward look for the alert('so you dont want cookies');

Re:Whoever made this... (1)

coene (554338) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849777)

So, you want me to guess their webadmin password and edit it myself?

bitch, bitch, bitch (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849521)

First thing it does when the applet loaded was to bitch at me for not accepting cookies. Just like my wife.

Not ethical (3, Insightful)

Bill_Royle (639563) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849529)

I respect the effort and ingenuity, but the rationale that "hey, we're helping solve a problem" somehow justifies stealing someone else's resources... it's just wrong.

Be upfront with people - tell them why it's so important, what can be accomplished with it, and what it does. You'd be surprised - people might help out of *gasp* the goodness of their own hearts. A good example might be SETI, etc.

Re:Not ethical (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849647)

It's -not- stealing resources to run a java program when you visit a web page. That's what applets are designed for. Do you complain every time java loads? If so, why do you run it? This is more useful than the vast majority of applets; why pick on it in particular?
They -are- upfront with people. It's not so important (the applet.) The stealing thing is a -joke-. Sheesh.

Re:Not ethical (1)

understyled (714291) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849672)

agreed. unauthorized program execution and the like is simply turning people off from the whole idea, making them suspect the need for such covert measures. whether the goings-on are used for good purposes or bad ones really is not so much an issue, as far as i'm concerned. those are all relative terms.

Re:Not ethical (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849702)

I respect the effort and ingenuity, but the rationale that "hey, we're helping solve a problem" somehow justifies stealing someone else's resources... it's just wrong.

Although letting visitors know about this would certainly seem nicer, I don't think I'd actually consider it as outright unethical.

For one thing, considering the number of websites out there that try to feed outright malicious code into our browsers, this looks very very tame by comparison. It uses a few CPU cycles, but has no long-term effects on the visitor.

For another, this seems no different that sending the visitor a few banner ads - Just a way of "paying" for the content. For most of the world, bandwidth costs far more than CPU time, so in effect, this "charges" the user less per visit than most advertisements. From some quick n' dirty calculations, the bandwidth for 35k of banner ads costs me 0.082 cents, while the electricity for a full hour of CPU time (on a PIII/933) costs me only 0.0045 cents... Literally 18 times more.


Finally, I can (and do) keep Javascript disabled in my browser. Advertisements, on the other hand, I do my best to block, but a few still manage to sneak through.

Re:Not ethical (5, Insightful)

Phillup (317168) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849755)

While I completely agree with your sentiment about being upfront... I don't agree with calling it "stealing".

Who clicked on the link?

Who has Java enabled on their browser?

Who has cookies enabled on their browser?

It isn't like he is doing anything "tricky" or using some "bug" to pull this off. The page doesn't "trap" you. It doesn't eat your CPU and make it impossible to quit the app or go to another page. And, for me, it didn't crash anything.

I *really* don't understand how this can even remotely be considered stealing. Every single item is being used *as*designed* both by the web author and you.

The way I see it... someone jumped in a pool... and now they are bitching about your clothes being wet?

Re:Not ethical (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849801)

Indeed. Actually, that's a good point - given that java applets are mainly used for advertising, which is making YOUR computer do the work of the advertiser, installing a JVM and enabling applets is clearly granting third parties a strictly limited licence to use some of your CPU licence. If your OS doesn't let you limit the amount of CPU time consumed by the applet, that a limitation of your stupid OS, not the fault of the advertiser/other-work-user.

Not very intensive. (4, Informative)

LoneIguana (681297) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849538)

It certainly isn't using very many cpu cycles, the OS reports that my webbrowser is using less than 1% of the available cpu power

Re:Not very intensive. (1)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849569)

The Usenet post noted that the applet ran a lowest priority thread, that's probably why. In addition, the browser caps the amount of processing power embedded applets have access to, otherwise, a malicious applet would be able to crash a system or render it unusable.

Re:Not very intensive. (2, Interesting)

smart_ass (322852) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849686)

With Mozilla I got the same ... but when I opened it up in IE 6.0 it hogged all resources.

./ effect = benefit?? (4, Funny)

bluelip (123578) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849539)

put the snippet on slashdot.org. The collisions should all be found within an hour.

Re:./ effect = benefit?? (2, Funny)

TCM (130219) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849656)

What's this Dotslash you talk about?

Re:./ effect = benefit?? (2, Informative)

Darth Fredd (663620) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849688)

Yeah, but do we all run Java enabled browsers? (lynx, links, etc)

I'm running No-Java-Opera right now:because the java enabled opera was 11 more megs.. ..and I have dialup.

Point is, geeky as we are, we're probably all expirementing with stuff.

NOT LIKE THAT YOU PERVERTS!!/

Normal Thread Priority (4, Funny)

cybermancer (99420) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849558)

Interesting idea, but most distributed computing tasks that run in the background run at low priority. Since this is running inside your browser (more or less) it will run at the priority of the browser. Unless your browser is running at low priority then this process will push all the lower priority processes out of process cycles.

This could prevent contact with ET!

Re:Normal Thread Priority (5, Informative)

mlk (18543) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849592)

Java applets run as a different process to the browser, and it can (and very likely does) create a new thread, and set its priority to low.

the slashdot effect (3, Funny)

Peeet (730301) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849563)

It's about time that the monster (us) is used for good and not evil.

Oooh! I thought of another way...
Just Click here. [sco.com]

-P

Re:the slashdot effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849756)

Dude, that's some fscked up stuff on that site! Damn entertaining, too. Did you read the whole Linux lawsuit FAQ thing? Funny shiznit! Obligation to protect their Intellectual Property...by distributing source code through their own FTP servers. Ha!

Great, GREAT idea. (2, Funny)

SargeZT (609463) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849593)

I nearly got suspended from school because I installed seti@home on all the machines. With this, I can still maintain my EVIL distributed computing campaign, and do it without them knowing!

Re:Great, GREAT idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849617)

I have absolutely no sympathy for you whatsoever. The first rule of distributed computing is that you install the clients ONLY on those systems for which you have permission to do so. Did you ask your school's sysadmin for permission to install Seti@home on every school system? No? Didn't think so.

At least with this system, the amount of resources you tie up is limited by you having a web browser open and pointing at the relevant web page. Even so, though, the first rule still applies.

MOD PARENT DOWN - -1, FLAMEBAIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849784)

This "Anonymous Coward" guy is always looking for a fight.

Crashing (1)

Aviancer (645528) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849612)

Is this applet crashing anyone else's browser?

Re:Crashing (1)

Peeet (730301) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849671)

I think so - it made Gomez Peer crap its pants as well,
maybe it's "Microsofting" (-1 Flamebait) the other distributed computing programs.
Anyone have Seti@home running?

Re:Crashing (1)

lounger540 (730992) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849713)

After viewing then leaving the page, iexplorer continues to use 95% cpu time on my 2.4 until I kill it. I only noticed when five minutes later my CPU fan sped up, it never sped up before.

Re:Crashing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849803)

Yeah. crashed Firebird 0.7 ever... so... slowly... on my vaio TR1.

Feh.

Any website adding this small snippet of code... (1)

amplt1337 (707922) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849630)

"What? No, honey, I was just visiting www.babe-licious.org to, umm. Help with the, er, research! Research on MD5 collisions! Yeah!"

For anyone wanting the code... (4, Informative)

Vaevictis666 (680137) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849635)

Here's the code:

<!-- try IFRAME, else use LAYER -->
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.jlcooke.ca/psearch/dmd5l.html" SCROLLING="NO" FRAMEBORDER="0" WIDTH="100" HEIGHT="32">
<LAYER SRC="http://www.jlcooke.ca/psearch/dmd5l.html" WIDTH="100" HEIGHT="32" CLIP="0,0,100,32"></LAYER>
</IFRAME>

It' s making an iframe that loads the applet, and just does its own thing - by loading in the iframe it can call back to their host, rather than yours :P

Someone should let him know that he needs to make his server parse .html files through PHP, 'cause he's got a PHP header that isn't being sent - oh yeah and better html please.

How to steal a virtual supercomupter? (2, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849639)

Let's put the research effort asside here and thing about the underlying concept here... basically, this is a distributed computing app being buried within webpages. Could commercial interests use this concept to get access to computing resources from their web users without telling them?

Executing Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849649)

Won't this Java Applet only execute while you are at the page in which has the applet? I notice in Windows that the Java taskbar icon appears when I go to the website and stays there until I "close" the window...

How long will the applet execute since I doubt it will execute after you close the browser window or leave the website?

New buisness plan (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849654)

1. Create very small website with CPU draining applet and post a link to said website to Slashdot.
2. ??
3. Profit!

Parasitic computing (3, Insightful)

bigberk (547360) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849674)

I believe the term was parasitic computing. Ideally the web master makes visitors aware to what's going on. You're using visitors' computing power to accomplish a neat sort of distributed computing. Great idea, if you're not just stealing resources

no thanks (3, Interesting)

mercuryresearch (680293) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849680)

As someone who intentionally runs a low-performance box as a primary system (VIA Epia 533) I'd be pretty unhappy with some snarfing up a few cycles. Junked-up web sites with flash and excessive java/javascript are REALLY noticable when you're browsing at the low end of the power curve.

I run a cpu monitor in the background and when a site wants to run one of the more annoying classes of advertisements, utilization usually pegs... I can't imagine what something that intentionally sucked cycles would do.

Re:no thanks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849775)

I agree, I have a laptop, and I know when I all of a sudden start sucking 100% CPU.

The fan starts humming and I can feel the computer's heat through my desk.

I also wouldn't want this to happen if I was on battery power.

make it from the same domain (1)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849683)

cross domain cookies get rejected by lots of people, and is going to be the default behavior under xp sp2 and 2k3. I'll accept a cookie from the site I am trying to use, but 3rd party folks better stand down, either provide a service for that info or some money, its what everyone wants from me these days. $$$'s for a long distance land line service I have never used but can't avoid, number portability for a cell # that I don't publish and never plan on taking anywhere with me...surcharges for handling and processing and restocking fees. I am bloody fed up with it, either give me somthing for my money, or STEP OFF JACKSON...

whew I feel better...Happy New Year all, be safe and have fun :)

RFI: "collision" means? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849695)

Newbie here. I searched around for "md5" and "collision", but only found sites that seemed to already understand what a collision is. Well, can someone explain what an md5 collision is? I'd like to continue reading the article....
Is it simply that, since the hashing is a reduction operation, that multiple (different) messages can have the same hash? If so, then can someone explain the utility of searching for such things?...I'm afraid I can't see the dark implications of such a functionality. Thanks in advance.

Re:RFI: "collision" means? (4, Insightful)

WTFmonkey (652603) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849722)

The whoop is that MD5 is often used for "fingerprinting" or other unique identification on the internet (et al). Since we all know that what can go wrong will, the question is the definition and accuracy of the infamous phrase "computationally infeasible."

Basically, in a world where everything was based on a thumbprint, would you want even the smallest chance, no matter how statistically unlikely, that someone else had the same thumbprint as you?

Re:RFI: "collision" means? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849733)

If two strings produce the same md5 hash, the universe ends. This project should probably be stopped.

Back in the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7849793)

Back in the day when in my office we were having a competition to process as many rc5 keys for distributed.net we used to do almost anything to get a higher key processing rate. We would kick back late after work and install the rc5 client as a Windows NT service on all the machines of people who would never know better.

At the time I did seriously consider the distributed processing via a web page approach, either in flash (actionscript can whir away on problems while displaying some whizzy graphic to keep visitors entertained), or java, but thought that it was a little unethical to use up random peoples CPU time (the people in the office were fair game in our rc5 war, the general public were not).

This plus popunders? ne The other way to pay. (2, Interesting)

IBitOBear (410965) | more than 10 years ago | (#7849820)

OK, so an evil webmister makes a pop-under containing this kind of code and puts it up when you visit his porn site (optionally by mistyping "google" in your address bar.)

Heck, (google|SlashDot|your legitimate business) just has a tiny inset on their page: "This box is using your spare CPU cycles to help us pay for this site or service. Subscribers do not see this box. Click here to subscribe."

It could work.

In the popunder case it is vile and abusive. In the legitimite and well advertised case it is totally fair.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>