[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070321162435.GE2797@sentinelchicken.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 12:24:35 -0400
From: Tim <tim-security@...tinelchicken.org>
To: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Chinese Professor Cracks Fifth Data Security
Algorithm (SHA-1)
Hello,
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 06:45:19PM +0300, 3APA3A wrote:
> Dear Michael Silk,
>
> First, by reading 'crack' I thought lady can recover full message by
> it's signature. After careful reading she can bruteforce collisions 2000
> times faster.
Both of you guys are confused.
First off Michael: this is old news. It doesn't seem to indicate that
finding collisions is any faster than 2^63, which was reported quite
some time ago[1].
> SHA-1 is 160 bit hash. Bruteforced 2000 times faster, it retains the
> strength of 149-bit hash for bruteforce collision attack (150 bit for
> birthday attack) by given text (MD5 is 128 bit). Great achievement. This
> can only be treated seriously by US court, like it was with MD5 :)
Secondly, 3APA3A, birthday attacks against the collision-resistance
property of a hash take approximately 2^(b/2) time, where b is the
number of bits. That is, brute-force birthday attacks would take around
2^80 time against SHA-1. These attacks reduce the complexity to 2^63,
or thereabouts, at least from what I've read previously[1].
As for US courts... which case are you referring to (as I'd be
interested to read the results)? The only one I know of involving MD5
was an Australian case[2].
cheers,
tim
1. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/08/new_cryptanalyt.html
2. http://news.com.com/2061-10789_3-5829714.html
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists