Re: SHA-1 broken

From: Damian Menscher (menscher_at_uiuc.edu)
Date: 02/20/05

  • Next message: John Richard Moser: "Re: Joint encryption?" 
    Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:35:59 -0600 (CST)
To: securityfocus@microtechnical.co.uk

    On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 securityfocus@microtechnical.co.uk wrote:
    >
    > In much the same way if the original text was 'I owe you 1 million
    > dollars' and the collision text was 'sdf86*&6989h,mni lkj99j' its not
    > significant.

    Hey, Nick. I want to confirm that I've installed GPG correctly. Would
    you mind signing some random text, say, "sdf86*&6989h,mni lkj99j", so I
    can test it?

    I'll admit I agree with your point, though. The demonstrated collisions
    in MD5 (none have been demonstrated in SHA-1 yet) varied four high-order
    bits. So it'd be fairly unrealistic (in the real world) to generate a
    useful collision. Here I define "useful" to mean at least one side has
    to be intelligible (as opposed to your definition of having both sides
    be intelligible).

    Damian Menscher 

    -- 
-=#| Physics Grad Student & SysAdmin @ U Illinois Urbana-Champaign |#=-
-=#| 488 LLP, 1110 W. Green St, Urbana, IL 61801 Ofc:(217)333-0038 |#=-
-=#| 4602 Beckman, VMIL/MS, Imaging Technology Group:(217)244-3074 |#=-
-=#| <menscher@uiuc.edu> www.uiuc.edu/~menscher/ Fax:(217)333-9819 |#=-
-=#| The above opinions are not necessarily those of my employers. |#=-
  • Next message: John Richard Moser: "Re: Joint encryption?"
    • Quantcast