[109635] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: PlayStation 3 predicts next US president
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James A. Donald)
Sun Dec 2 17:44:36 2007
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:19:18 +1000
From: "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
CC: cryptography@metzdowd.com, hash-forum@nist.gov
In-Reply-To: <4752DCAC.9030006@gmail.com>
James A. Donald wrote:
>> A notary is a certifier. Have you ever seen a notary
>> read the stuff he notarizes, let alone generate it?
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Actually, I deal with notaries regularly. I've always
> had to physically sign while watched by the notary.
> They always read the stuff notarized, and my
> supporting identification, because they are notarizing
> a signature (not a document).
Not true. Because they are notarizing a signature, not
a document, they check my supporting identification,
but never read the document being signed.
> And yes, they always generate the stamp or imprint
> they sign. To do otherwise would be irresponsible (and
> illegal).
If they were to generate an MD5 hash of documents
prepared by someone else, then the attack described
(eight different human readable documents with the same
MD5 hash) works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo@metzdowd.com
