Re: which hash function is secure?
cranium.2003_at_gmail.com
Date: 05/28/05
- Previous message: Unruh: "Re: which hash function is secure?"
- In reply to: Unruh: "Re: which hash function is secure?"
- Next in thread: wyattmd_at_gmail.com: "Re: which hash function is secure?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 28 May 2005 09:45:54 -0700
Unruh wrote:
> cranium.2003@gmail.com writes:
>
> >hello,
> > On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function its given that=>
> > The MD5 and SHA-1 algorithms are two popular but compromised
> >algorithms for generating cryptographic hash functions; the SHA-2
> >algorithm has no known compromises.
> > Then does that mean MD5 and SHA-1 are not one way that mean they
> >can be broken down?
> They are one way. They are still hashes. They are just not as
> cryptographically secure as would be wanted. Ie, it is possible to find two
> pieces of text which have the same hash in far fewer operations than should
> be the case. It has not AFAIK been shown that one can find a second text
> which has the same hash as a given text (the authentication use), but means
> that you can find two pieces of input that have the same hash. It may mean
> that for example youcould easily find garbage1 and garbage 2 such that
> Text1+hidden garbage1 has the same hash as Text2+hidden garbage2. This
> would allow you to send joe bloggs Text1(+hidden garbage1) as the text of a
> contract, and later go to court with Text2(+hidden garbage2) as the text of
> the contract. Since Text2 would match the hash, you might convince a court
> that Text2 was the contact rather than Text1.
>
Which is best MD5 or SHA-1? What are pros and cons of each
others?
> >regards,
> >cranium
- Previous message: Unruh: "Re: which hash function is secure?"
- In reply to: Unruh: "Re: which hash function is secure?"
- Next in thread: wyattmd_at_gmail.com: "Re: which hash function is secure?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
