BugTraq
SHA-1 broken Feb 16 2005 12:56PM
Gadi Evron (gadi tehila gov il) (5 replies)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 17 2005 02:44PM
Jonathan G. Lampe (jonathan lampe standardnetworks com)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 17 2005 01:28AM
Steve Friedl (steve unixwiz net)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 17 2005 01:25AM
Robert Sussland (robert inkwood org) (1 replies)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 17 2005 10:42PM
dullien gmx de (2 replies)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 19 2005 05:24PM
Darren Reed (avalon caligula anu edu au) (1 replies)
In some mail from dullien (at) gmx (dot) de [email concealed], sie said:
>
> Hey all,
>
> > We abandon the requirement of collision resistance. This is a strange
> > requirement, and is not supported by experience. Collision resistance
>
> we might think of changing the requirement of collision resistance
> to "collision resistance in input data that is valid ASCII text". The
> attacks on MD5 used the weak avalanche of the highest-order bit
> in 32-bit words for producing the collision, basically precluding the
> possibility of generating colliding ASCII text.

And what about the case for (uncompressed) binary images ?

Darren

[ reply ]
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 19 2005 05:41PM
dullien gmx de
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 19 2005 01:22PM
Tollef Fog Heen (tfheen err no) (1 replies)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 20 2005 09:45AM
Denis Jedig (seclists syneticon de)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 17 2005 01:02AM
Michael Cordover (michael cordover gmail com) (3 replies)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 18 2005 02:22AM
Dan Harkless (bugtraq harkless org)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 17 2005 11:32PM
D.J. Capelis (djcapelisp yahoo com) (1 replies)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 19 2005 03:37AM
Michael Cordover (michael cordover gmail com)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 17 2005 10:39PM
dullien gmx de
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 16 2005 11:27PM
Kent Borg (kentborg borg org)


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus