This question was inspired by another question and answer thread regarding false-positives on a Mac for an—apparently—PC only virus/malware.

My answer there posits that the hash BC8EE8D09234D99DD8B85A99E46C64—which is the filename for a file in the “Unified Logging” system directory /private/var/db/uuidtext/7B/—is just a false positive. I strongly believe this false positive diagnosis to be correct… But still, it strikes me as odd that a hash on a Mac would match a hash on a PC. What are the odds, right?

Anyway, while trying to understand why this might happen, I opened up the Terminal on the Mac Pro at work that runs macOS High Sierra 10.13.1 and looked into that system’s own /private/var/db/uuidtext/7B directory; ls -la output below:

total 128
drwxr-xr-x    9 root  wheel    306 Nov  8 09:33 .
drwxr-xr-x  259 root  wheel   8806 Sep 27 11:50 ..
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   5732 Nov  1 09:27 122DC675FC3FC6A8184614F1ECBB99
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel     35 Nov 27 09:31 3AAA6D1D0C3D65A50B1B111ABEB6F3
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel    103 Nov 27 09:18 7F80A4BACE396A9BC2DA7E3C619493
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   6605 Nov 27 09:21 96F54B98023EB49676A83C6A0E7A57
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel  32766 Nov 27 10:21 AE6788A12B367EA7442F303846B58D
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   1310 Nov 27 14:26 E6B6AA12DD365CA5C5C8C8A2293D0B
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel    344 Nov  1 10:26 ECFE2546EB32328AF616F3154B2ABA

And I have looked into the same directory on the Mac Mini I use at home that runs macOS High Sierra 10.13.1 as well and found the following:

total 48
drwxr-xr-x    7 root  wheel   238 Nov 27 18:12 .
drwxr-xr-x  259 root  wheel  8806 Sep 26 20:12 ..
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel  5732 Oct 29 13:59 122DC675FC3FC6A8184614F1ECBB99
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel    35 Nov 27 18:09 3AAA6D1D0C3D65A50B1B111ABEB6F3
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   103 Nov 27 18:08 7F80A4BACE396A9BC2DA7E3C619493
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel  1310 Nov 27 18:20 E6B6AA12DD365CA5C5C8C8A2293D0B
-rw-r--r--    1 root  wheel   344 Nov  1 20:01 ECFE2546EB32328AF616F3154B2ABA

Okay, seems like a boring pile of hashes, right? Well, look closer: Both systems show hashes for E6B6AA12DD365CA5C5C8C8A2293D0B and 7F80A4BACE396A9BC2DA7E3C619493. And I did a quick Google search for the hashes and while most of the items have no results whatsoever, I found that one of the hashes I mention above—E6B6AA12DD365CA5C5C8C8A2293D0Bshow up in a file directory listing on this page:


Okay, this is too weird. If these are system hashes that should be 100% random (to my knowledge) then why does my Mac at work, my Mac at home and someone else’s Mac—wherever they are—have the exact same hashed filename in a similar directory?

What might be the source/logic behind the hash values used by “Unified Logging” system? Why, based on these casuals observations, seem to be non-random?

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I think there is here some misunderstanding : Hash functions are never random :

A hash function is any function that can be used to map data of arbitrary size to data of fixed size. The values returned by a hash function are called hash values, hash codes, digests, or simply hashes.

A hash function takes in data and spits out a string which is the hash value. A good hash function is measured by its number of conflicts, meaning how many different data streams may generate the same hash value. Modern hash algorithms have become quite good at that, and are used to identify/fingerprint files for many reasons, for example finding viruses.

The two files you have found to be of the same hash value, also have the same exact size, so I would think that they also share common contents.

So you have probably proven that your Mac Pro at work uses the same hash function as your Mac Mini at home.

  • So basically what you are saying is if this “Unified Logging” format has a set amount of—let’s say—“Thing A”, “Thing B” and “Thing C” and those are literally the identifiers for that across systems then a hash of the literal names “Thing A”, “Thing B” and “Thing C” can equate to the same hash across systems? – JakeGould Dec 2 '17 at 16:37
  • 1
    Yes, as long as the same hash function is used (not to say that different functions cannot come up with the same hash value, although this hopefully is quite rare). – harrymc Dec 2 '17 at 17:10

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.