|
|
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 01:51AM Joel Maslak (jmaslak antelope net) (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 |
> 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..."
Bruce Schneier has long suggested that when signing a document made by
others, make some cosmetic changes to break any precomputed hash that
the creator might have in store for you.
Also: those who are not fully up to speed on the details of crypto hashes
might find my Tech Tip helpful:
An Illustrated Guide to Cryptographic Hashes
http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/iguide-crypto-hashes.html
Steve
--
Stephen J Friedl | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | +1 714 544-6561
www.unixwiz.net | Tustin, Calif. USA | Microsoft MVP | steve (at) unixwiz (dot) net [email concealed]
[ reply ]