Here's his last attempt to wriggle out of being proven wrong *again*.
You are funny. I know lots of people with lots of OpenSSL experience who are saying the OpenSSL documentation is shit. In fact, on most of the posts I've read on the subject, they say the test code is the best documentation -- they're right. That was what I used. It works now, so you seem to be flawed in your understanding.
Interesting how people who accomplish exactly nothing their entire lives are quick to call the work of others "shit".
Many people use OpenSSL quite easily. Each function is well documented, if you can take the time to read and didn't learn to code from "Visual Basic in 24 hours", as this fucktard clearly did.
Free clue: Applying hash chaining (using SHA1) to ASCII text would not produce ASCII text as in your challenge. Therefore, you are full of shit.
I merely said the encryption was using SHA hash chaining, not the data encoding
I gave him an opportunity to state the encoding by asking a couple of times, but he said it wasn't and was "just using SHA1", and that any mention of encoding was "shit" and "irrelevant".
It's taken a little while but I've finally smacked him enough that he inadvertantly admitted it. How embarassing for him.
I suspect he realized what a mistake he's made. Oh well. Perhaps he's finally figured out what base64 is
You can't do it, end of story.
Of course, no one can if the stated method is a lie. He said he was just using SHA1, and now there is an unnamed encoding scheme as well. There's also the fact that he refuses to state the exact algorithm - without knowing which of the many variants it's just a waste of time for anyone. Obviously.
I bet he thinks there is only one form of hash chaining, and only one possible encoding scheme
So to conclude: by simply inspecting his data, I've proven him to be wrong.
This code has been in production for about 2 years now, so that isn't the case. You can keep making things up though, it's pretty fun
Now he can figure out why this is not a very good idea in production code. I'm betting he just doesn't know any better, as the answer involves mathematics. There's a challenge for him!
A shame he's too cowardly to show the code, where, at the very least, I would point out that he is encoding the output, which contradicts what he said earlier. Then there's the inevitable differences between what he's done and what is described in Applied Cryptography. That's if he's even gotten it right
I guess he had better get back to learning how to code and reading up on encryption, then maybe he wouldn't have to take these public slappings
Or perhaps he'll just go back to sucking twirlip's cock in public