Bugtraq mailing list archives
Re: SHA-1 broken
From: Denis Jedig <seclists () syneticon de>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:45:04 +0100
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| we might think of changing the requirement of collision resistance | to "collision resistance in input data that is valid ASCII text". The | attacks on MD5 used the weak avalanche of the highest-order bit | in 32-bit words for producing the collision, basically precluding the | possibility of generating colliding ASCII text. That's not really useful is you want to sign something in non-English languages. Valid UTF8 might be a decent requirement, though.
What about Word documents? PDF files? Executable code? Depending on the context the meaning of "valid" will differ greatly. So you would have to supply a validation engine together with the signed data. I do not know enough about the characteristics of the MD5 attack to judge if using Base64-encoding beforehand would strongly mitigate it, however, an abstraction layer of encoding in a well-known format would make validation of the encoded stream easier. The big question is if there is a gain at all when using this validation - we still do not validate the original data, just the abstraction layer. Denis Jedig syneticon GbR
Current thread:
- Re: SHA-1 broken, (continued)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Michael Cordover (Feb 17)
- Re: SHA-1 broken dullien (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken D.J. Capelis (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Michael Cordover (Feb 20)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Dan Harkless (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Robert Sussland (Feb 17)
- Re: SHA-1 broken dullien (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Darren Reed (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken dullien (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Tollef Fog Heen (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Denis Jedig (Feb 21)
- Re: SHA-1 broken dullien (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Michael Cordover (Feb 17)
- RE: SHA-1 broken Frank Knobbe (Feb 21)
- Re: SHA-1 broken exon (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Peter J. Holzer (Feb 21)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Brian May (Feb 19)
- Re: SHA-1 broken Anatole Shaw (Feb 19)