Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: SHA-1 broken
From: Damian Menscher <menscher () uiuc edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 11:35:59 -0600 (CST)
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 securityfocus () microtechnical co uk wrote:
In much the same way if the original text was 'I owe you 1 million dollars' and the collision text was 'sdf86*&6989h,mni lkj99j' its not significant.
Hey, Nick. I want to confirm that I've installed GPG correctly. Would you mind signing some random text, say, "sdf86*&6989h,mni lkj99j", so I can test it?
I'll admit I agree with your point, though. The demonstrated collisions in MD5 (none have been demonstrated in SHA-1 yet) varied four high-order bits. So it'd be fairly unrealistic (in the real world) to generate a useful collision. Here I define "useful" to mean at least one side has to be intelligible (as opposed to your definition of having both sides be intelligible).
Damian Menscher -- -=#| Physics Grad Student & SysAdmin @ U Illinois Urbana-Champaign |#=- -=#| 488 LLP, 1110 W. Green St, Urbana, IL 61801 Ofc:(217)333-0038 |#=- -=#| 4602 Beckman, VMIL/MS, Imaging Technology Group:(217)244-3074 |#=- -=#| <menscher () uiuc edu> www.uiuc.edu/~menscher/ Fax:(217)333-9819 |#=- -=#| The above opinions are not necessarily those of my employers. |#=-
Current thread:
- RE: SHA-1 broken, (continued)
- RE: SHA-1 broken Michael Silk (Feb 19)
- 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 exon (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Michael Silk (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)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Anatole Shaw (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken securityfocus (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Damian Menscher (Feb 21)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Paul Johnston (Feb 21)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Michael Silk (Feb 21)
- Re: SHA-1 broken exon (Feb 21)
- RE: SHA-1 broken Michael Silk (Feb 19)