[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200703250321.l2P3LOsb023726@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:21:24 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: wac <waldoalvarez00@...il.com>
Cc: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>,
Secure Coding <SC-L@...urecoding.org>, 3APA3A <3APA3A@...urity.nnov.ru>,
Blue Boar <BlueBoar@...evco.com>
Subject: Re: Chinese Professor Cracks Fifth Data Security
Algorithm (SHA-1)
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 11:48:10 CDT, wac said:
> Of course not, is enough to find a collision and you'll get for example a
> message signed by somebody else that looks completely authentic since
> signatures encrypt that hash with the private key.
No, if you have a signature to some text, you need to find a collision to a
specified value - the one the signature covers. For instance, if you have
a 16 bit hash, finding two texts that both have a hash value of 0x1F6E doesn't
do you much good if the signature is for 0x4ED2. And due to the birthday
paradox, finding any pair of colliding hashes is a lot easier than finding
a collision to a specific hash.
And being able to force a collision to a specific hash may not be very
useful all by itself - for instance, if you're trying to collide the hash
that the PGP signature covers in this message, you *might* be able to find
a string of bits. But you won't be able to make it a *plausible* signature
unless your string of bits is *also* a chunk of English text, that reads as
if I wrote it. So not only do you need to be able to collide a specific
hash, you need to do so with at least *some* control over the content of
the text, which is even harder.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
_______________________________________________
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