Re: Collision in SHA-0
From: Mok-Kong Shen (mok-kong.shen_at_t-online.de)
Date: 08/17/04
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Entropy and Equivalent Key Lengths?"
- Previous message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: IS this for real?!"
- In reply to: Paul Rubin: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Next in thread: Michael Amling: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 11:31:12 +0200
Paul Rubin wrote:
> s_vinder@mail.com (S. Vinder) writes:
>
>>All hash algorithms (including ideal ones) produce collisions. The
>>question is *how often* they produce collisions. When you mount a
>>brute force attack, it is perfectly ok for any hash algorithm to
>>produce 1 collision per 2^n/2 generated n-bit hashes (it is
>>statistically expected). Only when you have discovered more than one
>>collision, you can claim an algorithm "broken". Even if they mount
>>some other kind of attack (other than brute force), more than one
>>collision per 2^n/2 attempts have to be discovered to be able to claim
>>that the algorithm has been "broken".
>
>
> I wouldn't say that. If someone discovers a 256 bit key K such that
> AES_K(0x 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000) produces
> 0x 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111, then I'd
> say AES is broken. The security claim is that no adversary can
> find such a key (or hash collision or whatever) with probability
> better than brute force. If they've found some faster way to do it,
> the claim fails.
I suppose the concept of 'probability' plays a role here. In
other words, what does 'with probability better than brute
force' exactly mean? Let's take an analogy: The top win in
lottery has a known probability. Imagine that one plays
lottery the first time and one wins, what would that signify?
I mean the 'probability with brute force' is an aveage one
that manifests itself only when a sufficiently large number
of trials are undertaken. Or do I miss something? Thanks.
M. K. Shen
- Next message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: Entropy and Equivalent Key Lengths?"
- Previous message: Mok-Kong Shen: "Re: IS this for real?!"
- In reply to: Paul Rubin: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Next in thread: Michael Amling: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|