This post was originally published on my blog, on December 23, 2018. You can see it here.
Unless you've been living under a rock for the last coup...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
A couple of quick comments:
You keep claiming the "hash" function returns only the first 5 characters of the hash, which it does not, and should not or the thing wouldn't work.
It seems quite pointless to go through a transformation of a clear list into an inefficient format. It's something I see pretty regularly and it confuses me why not do the matching when looping through the result the first time, so e.g.
\r\n
like you already do:
:
ornil
?
That's actually a very solid point. It's probably a trap of some sort where the author wants to make the article a bit more interesting for the reader which backfires. Both of your points are correct - the wording should be fixed and the general algorithm should be simplified, which I will do ASAP. Thanks for reading & the feedback!
Actually there's a small problem with the solution I suggested as well - technically two different passwords may end up with the same SHA1 hash result, so in the last step you should return a sum of them :)