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: <41B775A8.60203@doxpara.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:44:08 -0800
From: Dan Kaminsky <dan@...para.com>
To: George Georgalis <george@...is.org>
Cc: David Schwartz <davids@...master.com>, gandalf@...ital.net,
	BugTraq <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: MD5 To Be Considered Harmful Someday



>Since you can't possibly mean absolutely suitable, can you clarify your
>basis for suitability? I'm not asking for a technical proof, just the
>general metrics used to make the determination.
>
>If 160 bit SHA1 is good enough for one application but not another, what
>does one need to know to decide for their own application?
>  
>
SHA-1 is truncatable to 128 bits for applications that have limited 
space available for hashes.  This limits the birthday paradox attack to 
a 2^64 effort, but MD5 isn't anywhere close to that anymore.  
(Incidentally, the output of birthday attack is an unchosen collision, 
just like Wang's.)

SHA-1 isn't perfect, but we haven't known its been broken for a decade 
like we have for MD5.

--Dan