[193795] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: SHA1 collisions proven possisble
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Edelman)
Thu Feb 23 21:51:05 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "David Edelman" <dedelman@iname.com>
To: <valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu>,
"'Ricky Beam'" <jfbeam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <13340.1487902941@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:51:02 -0500
Reply-To: dedelman@iname.com
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Especially if that "document" is a component of a ciphersuite exchange.
--Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of
valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 9:22 PM
To: Ricky Beam <jfbeam@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble
On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 21:10:42 -0500, "Ricky Beam" said:
> When you can do that in the timespan of weeks or days, get back to me.
> Today, it takes years to calculate a collision, and you have to start
> with a document specifically engineered to be modified. (such
> documents are easily spotted upon inspection: why does this word doc
> contain two
> documents?)
That question never arises, because this word doc contains only one
document.
The *OTHER* word doc also contains only one document.
> You can't take any random document, modify it to say what you want,
> and keep the same hash. People still haven't been able to do that with
> MD5, and that's been "broken" for a long time.
That doesn't change the fact that if I can get you to sign a document I
present to you, I can still have lots of fun at your expense.
