Re: Collision in SHA-0
From: Bill Unruh (unruh_at_string.physics.ubc.ca)
Date: 08/18/04
- Next message: Bill Unruh: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Previous message: Matt Mahoney: "Re: IS this for real?!"
- In reply to: Martin Bodenstedt: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Next in thread: Volker Hetzer: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 17 Aug 2004 22:14:49 GMT
Martin Bodenstedt <martin.bodenstedt@landtag-bw.de> writes:
]S. Vinder wrote:
]> Tom St Denis <tomstdenis@iahu.ca> wrote in message news:<211Tc.392646$rCA1.212242@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
]>
]>
]>>It wasn't broken and now it is.
]>
]>
]> It's incorrect to say that one discovered collision means the the
]> algorithm is "broken" in this case. If you test 2^2048 input values,
]> you cannot expect to get 2^2048 different output values from a hash
]> function that is only capable of producing 2^160 output values.
And if he tested 2^2048 inputs, then he is a far far far greater genius
than just finding a collision.
Even 2^160 inputs is pretty great.
Note that if he manufactured the collision then it truely is broken.
.
]That was my thinking as well.
]Any hash function is bound to create collisions when its output value
]range is orders of magnitude smaller than the range of input values.
]Or am I missing something here?
No it is true. That is why all modern crypto hash functions have many bits
in them (eg 128 bits). A 4 bit hash is very easy to find collisions. a 128
bit hash much more difficult.
- Next message: Bill Unruh: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Previous message: Matt Mahoney: "Re: IS this for real?!"
- In reply to: Martin Bodenstedt: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Next in thread: Volker Hetzer: "Re: Collision in SHA-0"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|