full-disclosure - Re: Signature or checksum?

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <fe37588d0712020510u6a46fbd1mfbfed0a9ddf37a64@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2007 08:10:22 -0500
From: "Kristian Erik Hermansen" <kristian.hermansen@...il.com>
To: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
Subject: Re: Signature or checksum?

On Dec 2, 2007 7:00 AM,  coderman <coderman@...il.com> wrote:
> p.s.  for the tin foil hat crowd, those digital sigs are looking
> weaker every year compared to cryptographic hash functions and block
> ciphers:
>
> http://dwave.wordpress.com/2007/11/26/slides-from-sc07-progress-in-quantum-computing-panel/
>
> not to mention GNFS improvements the last few years...

Don't forget Galois group and Fermat surface research :-P
-- 
Kristian Erik Hermansen
"I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious."

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/