Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?
From: Timoleon (timoleon_at_gmail.com)
Date: 10/31/04
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Previous message: Anonymous: "Re: WORLD REVOLUTION ! !REVOLUCIÓN MUNDIAL ! WELTREVOLU"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:14:18 GMT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom St Denis wrote:
| Paul Rubin wrote:
|
|> Tom St Denis <tomstdenis@iahu.ca> writes:
|>
|>> Why would you think MD5 o MD5 would be stronger than MD5 [supposedly
|>> against finding collisions, though you could have meant against
|>> inversion]
|>
|>
|>
|> Read Krawczyk's paper about HMAC :).
|
|
| MD5 o MD5 isn't a good HMAC either. And in fact the reason for the
| double hash in HMAC has **NOTHING** todo with making the hash stronger.
| It's to make the MAC stronger.
|
| The trick is ... I **HAVE** read the hmac paper.
|
| Tom
Tom, you're just not that bright... :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.3.6 (MingW32)
Comment: Quae Sursum Volo Videre
iD8DBQFBhQ9dAIImbXvBmDERApH+AJoCX7ijlzTiT40dcQWJAYfG11SlRgCfaFi4
pXMB8StU1vEqR3T2yCjvOdk=
=uSGc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Previous message: Anonymous: "Re: WORLD REVOLUTION ! !REVOLUCIÓN MUNDIAL ! WELTREVOLU"
- In reply to: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: How about MD5(NewHash(DATA))?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|