bugtraq - Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.56.0412071842540.4478@redsky.antelope.net>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 18:46:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Joel Maslak <jmaslak@...elope.net>
To: Dan Kaminsky <dan@...para.com>
Cc: bugtraq@...urityfocus.com
Subject: Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday

On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Dan Kaminsky wrote:

> I've been doing some analysis on MD5 collision announced by Wang et al.
> Short version:  Yes, Virginia, there is no such thing as a safe hash
> collision -- at least in a function that's specified to be
> cryptographically secure.  The full details may be acquired at the
> following link:

The short-term fix seems to be something I've been recommending for a
while:

Compute hashes with both SHA-1 and MD5.

The chance of one algorithm becoming compromised in the mid-term is
relatively high IMHO (I was responsible for a PKI system which had to keep
integrity for 20 year periods of time - not an easy task considering what
we don't know about the future).  The chance of two becoming compromised
is relatively less.  The chance of a problem with MD5 and SHA-1 allowing
two different files to have collisions in both algorithms in *BOTH* is
very very small.

-- 
Joel