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 08 2004 09:19PM
Jack Lloyd (lloyd randombit net)
Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 08:43PM
Jack Lloyd (lloyd randombit net)
MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Today Dec 08 2004 01:39AM
Pavel Machek (pavel ucw cz) (1 replies)
Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Today Dec 08 2004 10:23PM
Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com) (1 replies)
Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Today Dec 08 2004 10:40PM
Pavel Machek (pavel ucw cz) (1 replies)
Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Today Dec 08 2004 10:36PM
Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com)
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 09:44PM
Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com)
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 11 2004 07:26PM
Solar Designer (solar openwall com)
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 11:23PM
Adam Shostack (adam homeport org)
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 09:05PM
Paul Wouters (paul xtdnet nl)
Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 01:51AM
Joel Maslak (jmaslak antelope net) (1 replies)
On Tue, 7 Dec 2004, Gandalf The White wrote:

> >From my reading it appears that you need the original source to create the
> doppelganger blocks. It also appears that given a MD5 hash you could not
> create a input that would give that MD5 back. Passwords encoded with MD5
> would not fall prey to your discovery. Is this correct?

My understanding is similar to yours.

However, imagine a PKI system in, say, a contract management system.

Let's say you can write a valid word document with a section of text that
can be "swapped" out.

That can be a problem. It breaks non-repudiation - someone could create
such a "swappable" contract and go to court and say "Yes, that's a valid
signature, but I really signed *THIS* document which just happens to have
an identical signature." Of course if I was called upon to testify, I
would respond, "Yes, but it is clear this contract was written with the
intent to defraud us, as to get this property, it has to be constructed in
a very specific mind with this fraud in mind at time of contract
origination..."

--
Joel

[ reply ]
Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 07:22PM
Steve Friedl (steve unixwiz net)
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 09:35PM
Dragos Ruiu (dr kyx net)
Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 06:52PM
David F. Skoll (dfs roaringpenguin com)
Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 05 2004 11:04PM
Ruth A. Kramer (rhkramer fast net)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus