Hash comparison between the original and its copy can reveal alterations if the values do not match. Which option reflects this correctly?

Hash comparison between the original and its copy can reveal alterations if the values do not match. Which option reflects this correctly?

• A. If the hash values match, the data has not changed
• B. If the hash values match, the data has changed
• C. Hash comparison cannot reveal changes
• D. Hash values indicate only file names

Answer: (A)

The main idea is using hash digests to verify data integrity. When you generate a hash from the original and from its copy, a match means the content has not changed, because even small alterations usually produce a different digest. That makes the statement that matching hash values indicate the data has not changed the best description. If the hashes differ, you have evidence that the copy was altered or corrupted. Hash comparison does reveal changes and is about the data itself, not just file names or metadata. So the option describing that matching hashes mean no change is the correct one, while the others misstate what hash values indicate.

The main idea is using hash digests to verify data integrity. When you generate a hash from the original and from its copy, a match means the content has not changed, because even small alterations usually produce a different digest. That makes the statement that matching hash values indicate the data has not changed the best description. If the hashes differ, you have evidence that the copy was altered or corrupted. Hash comparison does reveal changes and is about the data itself, not just file names or metadata. So the option describing that matching hashes mean no change is the correct one, while the others misstate what hash values indicate.