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)

Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday Dec 08 2004 09:44PM
Dan Kaminsky (dan doxpara com)

>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?
>
>
SHA-1 is truncatable to 128 bits for applications that have limited
space available for hashes. This limits the birthday paradox attack to
a 2^64 effort, but MD5 isn't anywhere close to that anymore.
(Incidentally, the output of birthday attack is an unchosen collision,
just like Wang's.)

SHA-1 isn't perfect, but we haven't known its been broken for a decade
like we have for MD5.

--Dan

[ reply ]

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)