Security Basics mailing list archives
RE: Hashing Functions
From: "Micheal Espinola Jr" <michealespinola () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 23:15:13 -0500
No worries. I was hoping that something substantial info might have actually been released. :) -- ME2 -----Original Message----- From: Steven DeFord [mailto:security.willworker () gmail com] Sent: Monday, March 28, 2005 1:40 PM To: Micheal Espinola Jr Cc: security-basics () securityfocus com Subject: Re: Hashing Functions Although, after reading the linked-to paper, they haven't really said much of anything other than "We did it!" So I retract my (implied) claim that details have been published. Apologies Steve On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:27:14 -0800, Steven DeFord <security.willworker () gmail com> wrote:
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:14:06 -0500, Micheal Espinola Jr <michealespinola () gmail com> wrote:Has it definitively been broken? I know I have read reports that itBruce Schneier's blog post about the collision attack: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html The paper itself: http://theory.csail.mit.edu/~yiqun/shanote.pdf -- Steven DeFord Security.Willworker () gmail com (925) 596-0426
-- Steven DeFord Security.Willworker () gmail com (925) 596-0426
Current thread:
- Hashing Functions Steven DeFord (Mar 24)
- Re: Hashing Functions Micheal Espinola Jr (Mar 28)
- Re: Hashing Functions Steven DeFord (Mar 29)
- Re: Hashing Functions Steven DeFord (Mar 29)
- RE: Hashing Functions Micheal Espinola Jr (Mar 29)
- Re: Hashing Functions Steven DeFord (Mar 29)
- Re: Hashing Functions Micheal Espinola Jr (Mar 28)
- Re: Hashing Functions Julien Gremillot (Mar 28)