bugtraq - Re: SHA-1 broken

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: <b271040a05021819373c64a0bc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:37:57 +1100
From: Michael Cordover <michael.cordover@...il.com>
To: Bugtraq <bugtraq@...urityfocus.com>
Subject: Re: SHA-1 broken

On this topic, I might actually say that a concatenation of two hashes
is very secure if the two hashes are sufficiently different.

Although MD5 and SHA1 are reasonably similar, let's suppose for a
moment that they use entirely different mechanisms.  If this were so
and the crack time for MD5 was 2**50, for SHA1 2**65, then the crack
time for CONCAT(MD5(string), SHA1(string)) would be about 2**115. 
This is because you need to find something that colides for both. 
This is *far* more difficult and therefore far more collision
resistant.  Unfortunately this requires 288 bits - far more than each
of the old hashes.  Still, that much memory doesn't tend to be a
problem ;).

Regards,

Michael Cordover

-- 
http://mine.mjec.net/