Dailydave mailing list archives
Re: anonymized
From: Rodney Thayer <rodney () canola-jones com>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 15:07:29 -0700
At 06:06 PM 8/17/2004 -0400, you wrote:
it's my understanding that it's not so important that they brute forced SHA-0, but it's that they supposedly did it in MUCH, MUCH less computations than expected. it should take you like 2^80 tries find a collision, but they supposedly did it in like 2^51 by using some smarts. or something like that. IANAM
This is correct, I believe. In all these discussions there is an implied "within much less than the astronomical and therefore unrealisic brute force time". P.s the current update, from my spies at the conference, is that SHA-1 isn't going to be broken. Not sure right now. MD-5 is still looking scruffy. So maybe we get to talk about real crypto attacks in a week. Goodie! _______________________________________________ Dailydave mailing list Dailydave () lists immunitysec com http://www.immunitysec.com/mailman/listinfo/dailydave
Current thread:
- anonymized dave (Aug 17)
- Re: anonymized Rodney Thayer (Aug 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- anonymized Dave Aitel (Aug 27)
- anonymized Mike Bailey (Aug 27)
- Re: anonymized Rodney Thayer (Aug 27)
- RE: anonymized Mike Bailey (Aug 27)
- Message not available
- RE: anonymized Rodney Thayer (Aug 27)