SecurityFocus

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)

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 08:01:13PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:

> Yes. At this point, MD5 should no longer be used for
>applications where an adversary might have access to the data that
>is being signed. That means it's no longer suitable for signing
>certificates or authenticating data sent over a peer-to-peer
>network. SHA1 with 160-bits is still, as far as we know, suitable for
>all of these purposes.

Since you can't possibly mean absolutely suitable, can you clarify your
basis for suitability? I'm not asking for a technical proof, just the
general metrics used to make the determination.

If 160 bit SHA1 is good enough for one application but not another, what
does one need to know to decide for their own application?

// George

--
George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator Linux BSD IXOYE
http://galis.org/george/ cell:646-331-2027 mailto:george (at) galis (dot) org [email concealed]

[ reply ]

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)