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)
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Dan Kaminsky wrote:

> 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:

The short-term fix seems to be something I've been recommending for a
while:

Compute hashes with both SHA-1 and MD5.

The chance of one algorithm becoming compromised in the mid-term is
relatively high IMHO (I was responsible for a PKI system which had to keep
integrity for 20 year periods of time - not an easy task considering what
we don't know about the future). The chance of two becoming compromised
is relatively less. The chance of a problem with MD5 and SHA-1 allowing
two different files to have collisions in both algorithms in *BOTH* is
very very small.

--
Joel

[ reply ]
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)
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