|
BugTraq
MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 06 2004 11:29PM Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com) (3 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 01:46AM Joel Maslak (jmaslak antelope net) (2 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 07 2004 10:54PM Gandalf The White (gandalf digital net) (4 replies) RE: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 04:01AM David Schwartz (davids webmaster com) (2 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 09:30PM George Georgalis (george galis org) (1 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 04:36AM Gandalf The White (gandalf digital net) (3 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 09:44PM Keith Oxenrider (koxenrider sol-biotech com) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 09:17PM Solar Designer (solar openwall com) (1 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 10:03PM Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com) (2 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 09 2004 01:47AM Pavel Kankovsky (peak argo troja mff cuni cz) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 08:48PM Paul Wouters (paul xtdnet nl) (2 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 08:52PM Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com) (1 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 01:51AM Joel Maslak (jmaslak antelope net) (1 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 12:13AM Tim (tim-security sentinelchicken org) (2 replies) Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 06:52PM David F. Skoll (dfs roaringpenguin com) |
|
Privacy Statement |
> I've been doing some analysis on MD5 collision announced by Wang et al.
> Short version: Yes, Virginia, there is no such thing as a safe hash
> collision -- at least in a function that's specified to be
> cryptographically secure. The full details may be acquired at the
> following link:
Yes, nice paper, and here you have nice story:
Okay, lets have two friends and one horse. Let's say Pavel and
Bara. Bara owns a horse, and needs money, so she wants to sell
it. Horse has some problems with its back, and Bara would be willing
to sell it for around $1300. Therefore she's quite surprised when
Pavel offers her $14000, and agrees immediately.
From: Pavel
To: Bara
Hi!
I'd like to buy Fita. If you accept my offer (msg1), just sign and
send it back.
:~/misc/md5$ cat msg1
I agree to sell you my horse ^Fita^, its saddle and harness for price 14000 dollars. Signed Bara
:~/misc/md5$ md5sum msg1
57ce330a6c6ca8e9ffab4f3b36b2a1a5 msg1
:~/misc/md5$
(Bara signs msg1 and sends it back to Pavel). Two days later, Pavel
comes with a car, and $1000. Bara denies she offered Fita for $1000,
but can not find copy of the e-mail exchange. Fortunately Pavel has a
copy with him, digitaly signed by Bara. They view it on her computer,
and verify the signatures. At that point Bara agrees she probably made
a mistake, and accepts $1000...
:~/misc/md5$ cat msg2
I agree to sell you my horse ^Fita^, its saddle and harness for price 1´000 dollars. Signed Bara
:~/misc/md5$ md5sum msg2
57ce330a6c6ca8e9ffab4f3b36b2a1a5 msg2
:~/misc/md5$
(With apologies to Bara; let's hope she'll never find out).
Pavel
PS: I tried it on linux console, and it does some nasty terminal
tricks. Of course, if Bara investigated, she'd probably found out
how...
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
[ reply ]