I didn't really like cryptacular that much. I don't really know why one character of the hash is being taken off; I remember curiously wondering why that was in there when I was fiddling with the source to get it to compile on Windows.
I also don't know if that would pose as a significant security threat - sure, you would be taking one character off of the number of characters that need to be brute forced, but it is only one. I'm not informed enough to give an accurate opinion.
I do know, though, that jumping to conclusions before a thorough explanation is provided is silly... Hence why I'm not suddenly jumping to the use of cryptacular or others.
I don't see how that can be, given that the character that's chopped off can take one of 40 values... Or is it case sensitive? Still, nowhere near 256.
I also don't know if that would pose as a significant security threat - sure, you would be taking one character off of the number of characters that need to be brute forced, but it is only one. I'm not informed enough to give an accurate opinion.
I do know, though, that jumping to conclusions before a thorough explanation is provided is silly... Hence why I'm not suddenly jumping to the use of cryptacular or others.