md5('240610708') == md5('QNKCDZO')
This comparison is true because both md5() hashes start '0e' so PHP type juggling understands these strings to be scientific notation. By definition, zero raised to any power is zero.
(PHP 4, PHP 5, PHP 7, PHP 8)
md5 — 计算字符串的 MD5 散列值
由于此函数依赖的算法已不足够复杂,不推荐使用此函数对明文密码加密。详细内容参见 这里。
$string, bool $binary = false): string
使用 » RSA 数据安全公司的 MD5 消息摘要算法 计算
string 的 MD5 散列值，并返回该散列值。
string要计算的字符串。
binary
如果可选的 binary 被设置为 true，那么 md5 摘要将以 16 字符长度的原始二进制格式返回。
以 32 字符的十六进制数形式返回散列值。
示例 #1 md5() 示例
<?php
$str = 'apple';
if (md5($str) === '1f3870be274f6c49b3e31a0c6728957f') {
echo "Would you like a green or red apple?";
}
?>
md5('240610708') == md5('QNKCDZO')
This comparison is true because both md5() hashes start '0e' so PHP type juggling understands these strings to be scientific notation. By definition, zero raised to any power is zero.Regarding Ray Paseur's comment, the strings hash to:
0e462097431906509019562988736854
0e830400451993494058024219903391
The odds of getting a hash exactly matching the format /^0+e[0-9]+$/ are not high but are also not negligible.
It should be added as a general warning for all hash functions to always use the triple equals === for comparison.
Actually, the warning should be in the operators section when comparing string values! There are lots of warnings about string comparisons, but nothing specific about the format /^0+e[0-9]+$/.If you want to hash a large amount of data you can use the hash_init/hash_update/hash_final functions.
This allows you to hash chunks/parts/incremental or whatever you like to call it.I've found multiple sites suggesting the code:
md5(file_get_contents($filename));
Until recently, I hadn't noticed any issues with this locally... but then I tried to hash a 700MB file, with a 2048MB memory limit and kept getting out of memory errors...
There appears to be a limit to how long a string the md5() function can handle, and the alternative function is likely more memory efficient anyway. I would highly recommend to all who need file hashing (for detecting duplicates, not security digests) use the md5_file() function and NOT the regular string md5() function!
md5_file($filename);
Note, to those interested, as this was for a local application not a server, I was more concerned with results than memory efficiency. In a live environment, you would never want to read an entire file into memory at once when avoidable. (at the time of coding, I did not know of the alternative function)From the documentation on Digest::MD5:
md5($data,...)
This function will concatenate all arguments, calculate the MD5 digest of this "message", and return it in binary form.
md5_hex($data,...)
Same as md5(), but will return the digest in hexadecimal form.
PHP's function returns the digest in hexadecimal form, so my guess is that you're using md5() instead of md5_hex(). I have verified that md5_hex() generates the same string as PHP's md5() function.
(original comment snipped in various places)
>Hexidecimal hashes generated with Perl's Digest::MD5 module WILL
>NOT equal hashes generated with php's md5() function if the input
>text contains any non-alphanumeric characters.
>
>$phphash = md5('pa$$');
>echo "php original hash from text: $phphash";
>echo "md5 hash from perl: " . $myrow['password'];
>
>outputs:
>
>php original hash from text: 0aed5d740d7fab4201e885019a36eace
>hash from perl: c18c9c57cb3658a50de06491a70b75cd<?php
function raw2hex($rawBinaryChars)
{
return = array_pop(unpack('H*', $rawBinaryChars));
}
?>
The complement of hey2raw.
You can use to convert from raw md5-format to human-readable format.
This can be usefull to check "Content-Md5" HTTP-Header.
<?php
$rawMd5 = base64_decode($_SERVER['HTTP_CONTENT_MD5']);
$post_data = file_get_contents("php://input");
if(raw2hex($rawMd5) == md5($post_data)) // Post-Data is okay
else // Post-Data is currupted
?>Note: Before you get some idea like using md5 with password as way to prevent others tampering with message, read pages "Length extension attack" and "Hash-based message authentication code" on wikipedia. In short, naive constructions can be dangerously insecure. Use hash_hmac if available or reimplement HMAC properly without shortcuts.