|
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) 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 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 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 |
> >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 ]