I agree with what you&#x27;re saying, I just don&#x27;t understand how it applies here.<p>Tons of people have created broken versions of popular encryption schemes. They go to Wikipedia, get the AES algorithm, and then implement it. That implementation turns out to be flawed, and by &quot;rolling their own encryption&quot; even if it is based on a very secure one, like AES, they have been incorrectly encrypting content.<p>But that doesn&#x27;t apply here. They didn&#x27;t create their own encryption scheme. Literally, nowhere in the code examples that I have seen did they reproduce either a popular or their own bespoke encryption routine (no maths == no encryption).<p>Concatenating strings together and then passing it to MD5() is authentication, but the actual hash function implementation is housed entirely within MD5() which presumably is created by someone who didn&#x27;t screw it up.<p>People in this thread seem to want to entirely redefine what the term &quot;encrypt&quot; even means to encompass the entire authentication logic but either by the dictionary[0] or Wikipedia definitions[1] that is not correct.<p>If people want to create a new phase: &quot;Don&#x27;t roll your own authentication.&quot; I am absolutely fine with that. Just don&#x27;t misappropiate an existing one.<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thefreedictionary.com&#x2F;encrypt" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.thefreedictionary.com&#x2F;encrypt</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Encryption" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Encryption</a>