Bugtraq mailing list archives
RE: SHA-1 broken
From: Frank Knobbe <frank () knobbe us>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:46:23 -0600
On Thu, 2005-02-17 at 16:34 -0500, Scovetta, Michael V wrote:
[...] And due to recent discoveries, we can push those down to 2**50 and 2**55 respectively. Breaking a composition would still take on the order of 2**55 (the harder of the two)
If the two algorithms are different, finding a collision in one of them does not deliver a working collision in the other, no? Don't you have to find a "common" collision between the two? Wouldn't that require an effort of 2**(50+55)? Regards, Frank
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Current thread:
- Re: SHA-1 broken, (continued)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Dan Harkless (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Robert Sussland (Feb 17)
- Re: SHA-1 broken dullien (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Darren Reed (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken dullien (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Tollef Fog Heen (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Denis Jedig (Feb 21)
- Re: SHA-1 broken dullien (Feb 19)
- RE: SHA-1 broken Frank Knobbe (Feb 21)
- Re: SHA-1 broken exon (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Peter J. Holzer (Feb 21)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Brian May (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Anatole Shaw (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Michael Silk (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken peeon+securityfocus (Feb 21)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Peter Jeremy (Feb 21)