Re: Collision in SHA-0
From: Gregory G Rose (ggr_at_qualcomm.com)
Date: 08/17/04
- Next message: Bill Unruh: "Re: strengthening /dev/urandom"
- Previous message: Vernon Schryver: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- In reply to: Jean-Luc Cooke: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Next in thread: weinmann: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Reply: weinmann: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 16 Aug 2004 22:41:35 -0700
In article <cfrnsc$qt5$10@driftwood.ccs.carleton.ca>,
Jean-Luc Cooke <jlcooke@engsoc.org> wrote:
>Very interesting. but I have not been able to reproduce this.
>
>int m1[] = {
>0x313838dd, 0xfc2932c7, 0xc030b717, 0xbafc1bae, 0x6673a8d7, 0x9ddcf416, 0x85d70859, 0x99403db0,
>0x0634add1, 0xc0736004, 0x9558bd1f, 0x21e10982, 0xca94c90b, 0x6aae6e69, 0xcbf61bf1, 0x06b0e615,
>0x2e82d48b, 0x16bdf161, 0xce10bd62, 0xc3c6809d, 0xb6745639, 0xfc0e06c7, 0x6573a914, 0xbef0d753,
>0x537b8755, 0x497b92e8, 0x46f559c2, 0x7d7a347a, 0x0511d8b1, 0x98ebeb68, 0xc9ca4559, 0xeb10e037
>};
>int m2[] = {
>0x313838dd, 0xfc2932c7, 0xc030b717, 0xbafc1bae, 0xe673a8d7, 0x9ddcf416, 0x85d70859, 0x99403db0,
>0x0634add1, 0xc0736004, 0x9558bd1f, 0x21e18982, 0xca94c90b, 0x6aae6e69, 0x4bf61bf1, 0x06b0e615,
>0x2e82d48b, 0x16bdf161, 0xce10bd62, 0xc3c6809d, 0x36745639, 0xfc0e06c7, 0x6573a914, 0xbef0d753,
>0x537b8755, 0x497b92e8, 0x46f559c2, 0x7d79b47a, 0x0511d8b1, 0x98ebeb68, 0x49ca4559, 0xeb10e037
>};
>
>fwrite(m1, 1, sizeof(m1), fout1);
>fwrite(m2, 1, sizeof(m2), fout2);
>
>Any glaring mistakes?
No, the glaring mistake is not yours. But
apparently the team believed Applied
Cryptography's description of MD5, and got the
byte ordering wrong. Nevertheless, the result
apparently holds if you byte-swap all the words. I
met Xuejia Lai (who I know was him, I've met him
before) and (I think... it was dark, and I'm
inebriated) Ms Xiaoyun Wang tonight. If you take
their formula and apply it to the correct starting
vector you should have MD5 collisions soon.
It seems to me that one consequence of this is
that certificates with MD5 should be believed
*only* if they are dated before today.
Greg.
-- Greg Rose 232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C Qualcomm Australia: http://www.qualcomm.com.au "Nothing beats a tinfoil hat." -- Phil Carmody.
- Next message: Bill Unruh: "Re: strengthening /dev/urandom"
- Previous message: Vernon Schryver: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- In reply to: Jean-Luc Cooke: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Next in thread: weinmann: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Reply: weinmann: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
