nanog mailing list archives
Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 03:42:12 +0000
James DeVincentis via NANOG wrote:
On top of that, the calculations they did were for a stupidly simple document modification in a type of document where hiding extraneous data is easy. This will get exponentially computationally more expensive the more data you want to mask. It took nine quintillion computations in order to mask a background color change in a PDF. And again, the main counter-point is being missed. Both the good and bad documents have to be brute forced which largely defeats the purpose. Tthose numbers of computing hours are a brute force. It may be a simplified brute force, but still a brute force. The hype being generated is causing management at many places to cry exactly what Google wanted, “Wolf! Wolf!”.
The Reaction state table described in https://valerieaurora.org/hash.html appears to be entertainingly accurate. Nick
Current thread:
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble James DeVincentis via NANOG (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble Matt Palmer (Mar 01)
- RE: SHA1 collisions proven possisble james.d--- via NANOG (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble valdis . kletnieks (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble James DeVincentis via NANOG (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble Nick Hilliard (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble Matt Palmer (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble James DeVincentis via NANOG (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble Royce Williams (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble Jimmy Hess (Mar 02)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble valdis . kletnieks (Mar 02)
- RE: SHA1 collisions proven possisble james.d--- via NANOG (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble James DeVincentis via NANOG (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble Peter Kristolaitis (Mar 01)
- Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble Matt Palmer (Mar 01)