Re: Re-secured Algorithm?
tomstdenis_at_gmail.com
Date: 08/29/05
- Next message: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Previous message: Regis: "Re: Re-secured Algorithm?"
- In reply to: Regis: "Re: Re-secured Algorithm?"
- Next in thread: Regis: "Re: Re-secured Algorithm?"
- Reply: Regis: "Re: Re-secured Algorithm?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: 28 Aug 2005 18:28:16 -0700
Regis wrote:
> >Um I guess you weren't around last year but the same people who broke
> >SHA-1 had real collisions in MD5. Google for around august of 2004.
>
> How did I know you're going to start your Google nonsense again?
> I specifically asked YOU to show me collisions that YOU have produced.
> Not other people.
> Not Google.
> YOU.
> Tom St. Denis.
> JUST YOU.
> You're the one that said it was "trivial" to do, so I'm calling you on
> it.
Since when did I start answering to you? If you can't find your own
information you'll just have to starve for information like the rest of
the ignorants.
> Even in a dozen years it will still be impractical in the sense that
> it would still cost you a lot of money to mount your attack.
> Certainly not as much money as it would today, but still it won't be
> free by any stretch of the imagination.
Nothing is free.
> In either case, it's a moot point because I never once said anything
> to suggest that anyone should still be using SHA-1 much beyond 2010.
> Between now and then, hopefully a new standard will be agreed upon,
> and there's still plenty of time for software developers to make the
> necessary changes long before attacks on SHA-1 can be successfully
> carried out in a short amount of time.
I think the problem you have is accute-can't-agree-itis. Nobody is
saying SHA-1 is totally ineffective today. If you think that's what
I'm saying it's because you're looking for an excuse to disagree with
me.
> >Oh, that's a sound argument. Personal attacks!
>
> It wasn't a personal attack.
> Get over yourself -- you're not important enough for me to attack you
> personally.
How is what you said not personal?
> What I said was that nobody gives a rat's ass about you if you tried
> to organize some distributed computing effort.
And that's not meant to be personal?
> Just as nobody would give a rat's ass about me if I did the same
> thing.
Then you could rephrase that as "nobody would care to join in anyones
MD5 search"... something I said a few posts back.
> >[whatever, I know for a fact you're younger than 25, mature people are
> >like well groomed ladies, if you have to say you are you're not.]
>
> LOL
> As if I didn't already have enough reasons to laugh at you, I just
> found yet another one.
> How the hell could you possibly "know for a fact" anything about me,
> let alone my age? Newsflash: you can't, and you don't.
> And just to satisfy your overwhelming curiosity, you can rest assured
> that I'm not younger than 25. As much as I loved my 20's, I'm glad to
> have left them behind.
I'm sure by time you're a big boy you won't be braging about being all
old and mature.
So what? You go to high schools and brag to the kids "look I'm a
middle age person with a bad attitude!"
<snip>
Tom
- Next message: Regis: "Re: The importance of IVs"
- Previous message: Regis: "Re: Re-secured Algorithm?"
- In reply to: Regis: "Re: Re-secured Algorithm?"
- Next in thread: Regis: "Re: Re-secured Algorithm?"
- Reply: Regis: "Re: Re-secured Algorithm?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
