Md5 Hash Generator
Perry Barillari
This MD5 hash generator is useful for encoding passwords, credit cards numbers and other sensitive date into MySQL, Postgress or other databases. PHP programmers, ASP programmers and anyone developing on MySQL, SQL, Postgress or similar should find this online tool an especially handy resource.
An MD5 hash is created by taking a string of an any length and encoding it into a 128-bit fingerprint. Encoding the same string using the MD5 algorithm will always result in the same 128-bit hash output. MD5 hashes are commonly used with smaller strings when storing passwords, credit card numbers or other sensitive data in databases such as the popular MySQL. This tool provides a quick and easy way to encode an MD5 hash from a simple string of up to 256 characters in length.
MD5 hashes are also used to ensure the data integrity of files. Because the MD5 hash algorithm always produces the same output for the same given input, users can compare a hash of the source file with a newly created hash of the destination file to check that it is intact and unmodified.
An MD5 hash is NOT encryption. It is simply a fingerprint of the given input. However, it is a one-way transaction and as such it is almost impossible to reverse engineer an MD5 hash to retrieve the original string.
Use this tools to hash a string into a message digested MD5 hash. This is a quick way for you to verify a hash you are creating is correct. If you are using salt, make sure to include that in the string.
MD5 is a 128 bit "message-digest" algorithm that was released in 1991. It creates a 16 byte hash value for the input of the algorithm. MD5 is one-way, meaning that the original input cannot be be determined simply by knowing the hash value. MD5 was also intended to be collision resistant, meaning that two inputs could not have the same hash value, until 2004 when it was determined not to be resistant.
MD5 is often used as a checksum algorithm. Text or files are fed into the MD5 algorithm and the resulting hash would change if the file had been changed. This is done to detect malicious tampering, or file corruption.MD5 has also historically been used as a password hashing algorithm. Password hashing algorithms allow a password to be stored, in a website's database for instance, without having to store the actual password. This makes it more difficult to steal passwords, and if the hash is taken, the user's password is not necessarily compromised. When using a hashing algorithm for passwords it is wise to use "salt". With MD5, salt is added by concatinating a string unrelated to the password to the user supplied password string. MD5 has since been deemed too weak for this, and was succeeded by SHA-1 and then SHA-2.
A plain MD5 hash: I love Dan's Tools! results in a hash of acf014f1bc68c2af42e1e349221e403b.An MD5 Hash with salt for a user supplied password of supersecret would be salted so the input for the MD5 is saltstringsupersecret. This would result in a hash of 75f94b73c4b8564b6e07369b031764b6.code white-space: normal;LanguageEncodeNotesPHPmd5($string);Perlmd5($string);*requires use Digest::MD5 qw(md5 md5_hex md5_base64);
I'm aware you can always just convert the expression to a tuple, but I was asking if you can bypass that by simply using the output of the generator without the tuple container, similar to how sum() could be used for such a thing.
For 2, the answer is simple: In this case, hash is based on the object's id. Since you don't actually store the object, its memory gets reused. That means the next generator has the same id and thus hash.
For 1, the answer is "because they can". hash is primarily meant for use in dict, set and other situations where it allows identifying an object. These situations set the constraint that a == b also implies hash(a) == hash(b) (the reverse is not constrained).
Now, for list, dict and other collections, equality is based on content. [1,2,3] == [1,2,3] regardless whether both are the same objects, for example. This means if something is added to them, their equality changes and thus their hash would change as well. Thus, hash is undefined, as it must be a constant for it to work in dict etc.
In contrast, a generator can have any content. Consider for example a generator providing random values. Thus, it makes no sense to compare generators by content. They are only ever compared by identity. So, a == b equals id(a) == id(b) for generators. In turn, this means basing hash(a) on id(a) will always satisfy the constraint by equality on hash.
The hash value is presumably based on the object identity, not its contents. You're probab;y seeing that result because you're not storing the generators, so they're garbage collected and their ids are re-used. Here are some other examples that show it's not just a single hash all the time:
As for why Python lets you hash them, it's the same reason it lets you hash all sorts of objects: so you can tell different objects apart and use them as dictionary keys. It's not meant to tell you about what the generator does, just what object it is. It's no different than this:
The idea that if an object is hashable then it is immutable is something of a misconception. Objects can define any sort of hashing they want as long as it is compatible with their own equality definition. Instances of user-defined classes, for instance, are hashable in a manner similar to these generator functions (hash based on object id).
People sometimes seem to think that the rule is "if an object is mutable, it is not hashable", but that's not correct. The actual rule is more like "if an object is not hashable, then it is mutable". (More specifically, it defines a notion of equality that depends on mutable state, or it explicitly bars hashing for some perverse reason of its own.) In other words, it doesn't usually make sense to ask why a certain hashable type is hashable; it only makes sense to ask why an unhashable type is unhashable. The built-in mutable types list, dict, and set have a specific reason for being unhashable: they are meant to be compared based on their (mutable) values, not object id. But just because some other type has some internal state doesn't mean it can't be hashable. You can define objects that are mutable and hashable all day long. They just have to define equality and hashability in compatible ways. Generators indeed cannot be compared for equality based on their contents either:
For generators, hashing based on values would be uniquely nonsensical, because the values don't exist until they're actually yielded from the generator. If hashing were based on values, there would be no way to hash a generator that, for instance, used random numbers to decide what to yield next.
The 'unhashtable type' is a purposeful restriction on core mutable collections (ie. list) with a defined content-equality comparison because this avoids some common programming errors. Most notably, when used as dictionary keys.
However, the content-equality compare for a generator object is the same as the identity compare: gen == gen implies gen is gen. This is no different than using hash/== with the result of object(): it often isn't useful, and if it is, identity-hash/equality are expected.
The result of either the hash or the equality of a generator is independent upon the future materialized content. Because of this it has no content-useful == and thus needs not implement a content-useful hash. If it should be a 'unhashtable type' then becomes a gray-area at best because it is no more (or rather, is as) useful than object() as a dictionary key.
Thus it is permissible for any value to be returned for the hash of a generator (even if it is duplicated among different generator instances as long as it meets the constraint hash(x) == hash(x) -> x == x), as long as it is consistent for the given generator instance (as gen == gen -> gen is gen).
If iterators are hashable, generator expressions should not be an exception. Iterators are stateful, not sure about mutable. Or would stateful mean mutable? More so, iterators are simply object/value factories and nothing more:
Special note about line endings: Mac/Unix and Windows use different codes to separate lines. The tool on this page normalizes all line endings to a Line Feed (\n). Other tools are available online if you need hashes specifically with Windows line endings (Carriage Return + Line Feed: \r\n).
TLS ensures that the connection between the browser and the server is secure. The resource itself may still be modified server-side by an attacker to include malicious content, yet still be served with a valid TLS certificate. SRI, on the other hand, guarantees that a resource hasn't changed since it was hashed by a web author.
Alternatively, in the past I've managed to discover a few text names from hex hashes by searching similar files for common Rockstar naming schemes (that Rockstar left in plain English) & then using them to guess what the name might be & confirm if correct in OpenIV's Hash Generator etc. One in a billion+ chance that though, & certainly not a reliable method, especially for unknown prop/object names etc (can work well in audio related '.rel' files though, where naming schemes are usually somewhat similar).
@JohnFromGWN Oh it was a prop from a mod. Strangely when I selected it with Menyoo, Menyoo only show it's hash instead of name. I'm assuming it was like that because in ymap file author wrote the hash name instead of model name. So I was trying to find the name of the prop
That is never going to work. Hashes are computational checksums, as it were, over a string. They are inherently irreversible... unless you already have the name(s). We have the hashes for all Natives, for instance. Those can be reversed by simple look-up. I often do the same, with a custom tool of mine, for prop names (and everything hash) in a ytyp, for example, with only hash names. I collect all prop/meta data names, compute their hashes, then replace the hash names in the ytyp with the corresponding prop/meta data names again. Just because it looks cleaner.
df19127ead