BugTraq
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 19 2005 09:53AM
securityfocus microtechnical co uk (3 replies)
Re: SHA-1 broken Mar 01 2005 02:32PM
Pavel Machek (pavel ucw cz)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 21 2005 11:02AM
Paul Johnston (paul westpoint ltd uk)
Re: SHA-1 broken Feb 20 2005 05:35PM
Damian Menscher (menscher uiuc edu)
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 securityfocus (at) microtechnical.co (dot) uk [email concealed] wrote:
>
> In much the same way if the original text was 'I owe you 1 million
> dollars' and the collision text was 'sdf86*&6989h,mni lkj99j' its not
> significant.

Hey, Nick. I want to confirm that I've installed GPG correctly. Would
you mind signing some random text, say, "sdf86*&6989h,mni lkj99j", so I
can test it?

I'll admit I agree with your point, though. The demonstrated collisions
in MD5 (none have been demonstrated in SHA-1 yet) varied four high-order
bits. So it'd be fairly unrealistic (in the real world) to generate a
useful collision. Here I define "useful" to mean at least one side has
to be intelligible (as opposed to your definition of having both sides
be intelligible).

Damian Menscher
--
-=#| Physics Grad Student & SysAdmin @ U Illinois Urbana-Champaign |#=-
-=#| 488 LLP, 1110 W. Green St, Urbana, IL 61801 Ofc:(217)333-0038 |#=-
-=#| 4602 Beckman, VMIL/MS, Imaging Technology Group:(217)244-3074 |#=-
-=#| <menscher (at) uiuc (dot) edu [email concealed]> www.uiuc.edu/~menscher/ Fax:(217)333-9819 |#=-
-=#| The above opinions are not necessarily those of my employers. |#=-

[ reply ]


 

Privacy Statement
Copyright 2010, SecurityFocus