El Vie 18 Feb 2005 11:24, Kent Borg escribió:
> Concatenating two different hashes, for example SHA-1 and MD5,
> apparently does not add as much security as one might hope.
>
> What about more complicated compositions? For example, a reader
> comment posted on Bruce Schneier's blog
> (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html)
> suggests the following:
>
> d1=SHA-1(data)
> d2=MD5(data)
> d3=SHA-1(d1+data+d2)
>
> The final digest would be d1+d2+d3
>
> (where "+" is concatenation)
>
>
> I admit I don't know why this might be significantly better than
> d1+d2, I was hoping someone here would.
>
>
> -kb
Having d1+d2 may leave some useful information in order to obtain a collition
more fastest because we can intersect these functions... SHA-1(d1+data+d2) is
relative better than d1+d2. I dont think that is really secure... d2 or d1
may leave some useful information. we need to study and probe that.
I dont recomend something as: HASH(HASH(data)+data) until a research of
propietries of that where investigated and mathematical proved. The better
method (i think) is: HASH(HASH(data)), because adds two layer... and have the
same or more security than HASH(data). it's simple... if you use HASH(data),
you can obtain HASH(HASH(data)), and crack from HASH(HASH(data)) (if 2-ble
round hash is more weakness).
A simple probe of a very basic crypto-system that isn't good idea have two
rounds are: XOR, the second round leave the original text. With one way
functions may happen something similar.
> Concatenating two different hashes, for example SHA-1 and MD5,
> apparently does not add as much security as one might hope.
>
> What about more complicated compositions? For example, a reader
> comment posted on Bruce Schneier's blog
> (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html)
> suggests the following:
>
> d1=SHA-1(data)
> d2=MD5(data)
> d3=SHA-1(d1+data+d2)
>
> The final digest would be d1+d2+d3
>
> (where "+" is concatenation)
>
>
> I admit I don't know why this might be significantly better than
> d1+d2, I was hoping someone here would.
>
>
> -kb
Having d1+d2 may leave some useful information in order to obtain a collition
more fastest because we can intersect these functions... SHA-1(d1+data+d2) is
relative better than d1+d2. I dont think that is really secure... d2 or d1
may leave some useful information. we need to study and probe that.
I dont recomend something as: HASH(HASH(data)+data) until a research of
propietries of that where investigated and mathematical proved. The better
method (i think) is: HASH(HASH(data)), because adds two layer... and have the
same or more security than HASH(data). it's simple... if you use HASH(data),
you can obtain HASH(HASH(data)), and crack from HASH(HASH(data)) (if 2-ble
round hash is more weakness).
A simple probe of a very basic crypto-system that isn't good idea have two
rounds are: XOR, the second round leave the original text. With one way
functions may happen something similar.
[ reply ]