FROM : Alastair Houghton
DATE : Wed Apr 02 18:50:22 2008
On 2 Apr 2008, at 17:19, John Stiles wrote:
> I take it all back; in 2007 there was an MD5 attack discovered which
> actually allows for completely different binaries that sign the
> same. Check Wikipedia for the details, but basically MD5 is totally
> broken now. Wow, times change!!
Actually I don't think you should take it back; it looks to me like
the problem that has been solved (that of finding two files with the
same prefix that have the same MD5 sum) is not a useful exploit in
most cases.
In order for it to be a real vulnerability, you would need an
algorithm that, as you say, allows someone to take an arbitrary file
and add some bytes that are determined by the algorithm in order to
match a given hash. I don't believe, from what I've read, that that
particular problem has been solved.
The vulnerability that we have currently would only allow the original
creator of a file to generate another file with the same checksum, and
only under certain preconditions, so I contend that, as you originally
stated, MD5 is not fully broken (and not even usefully broken in many
respects).
Kind regards,
Alastair.
--
http://alastairs-place.net
DATE : Wed Apr 02 18:50:22 2008
On 2 Apr 2008, at 17:19, John Stiles wrote:
> I take it all back; in 2007 there was an MD5 attack discovered which
> actually allows for completely different binaries that sign the
> same. Check Wikipedia for the details, but basically MD5 is totally
> broken now. Wow, times change!!
Actually I don't think you should take it back; it looks to me like
the problem that has been solved (that of finding two files with the
same prefix that have the same MD5 sum) is not a useful exploit in
most cases.
In order for it to be a real vulnerability, you would need an
algorithm that, as you say, allows someone to take an arbitrary file
and add some bytes that are determined by the algorithm in order to
match a given hash. I don't believe, from what I've read, that that
particular problem has been solved.
The vulnerability that we have currently would only allow the original
creator of a file to generate another file with the same checksum, and
only under certain preconditions, so I contend that, as you originally
stated, MD5 is not fully broken (and not even usefully broken in many
respects).
Kind regards,
Alastair.
--
http://alastairs-place.net






Cocoa mail archive

