Re: [sleuthkit-users] Words of wisdom on recent SHA collisions

[Gary P. <pa...@mi...>]

Sorry the numbers 269 and 280 should read in exponential notation. The 
correction is 2**69 and 2**80 respectively

Gary Palmer wrote:

> Hi,
> Just received this from Doug White (NIST) who is attending RSA. He and 
> his colleagues has some thoughtful statements about the state of SHA 
> both theoretically and in practice.
> ciao,
> Gary
> ********************
>
> Gary,
>
> I'm replying to you, and, as I can't post to CFID, if you wish to
> forward this, you may.
>
> Let me first say I am not in the Computer Security Division at NIST,
> and my opinions do not represent NIST's official response to this
> SHA-1 collision news.
>
> At RSA on Tuesday morning, Shamir made the statement that he had
> received an email over the weekend from a team claiming to have
> manufactured a full SHA-1 collision in 269. From his statements,
> I (and others) assume that he has seen an advance copy of a paper
> or an outline of the process, and that there is no public release
> of the work yet, with no expected date.
>
> While this is fascinating and an advance on several fronts - collision
> through 80 rounds, in well under 280 (theoretical threshold) - I
> do not believe it affects the usefulness of SHA-1 as applied in
> our situation. There has always been a possibility of SHA-1 collisions,
> the probability of SHA-1 collisions has not, as far as I can see,
> been raised greatly. I do not know but I highly doubt that this new
> research could lead to a preimage attack.
>
> There are more SHA-1 related tracks at RSA today that I will be
> attending, and if any news comes out there, I will forward it on
> to you and the list.
>
> Doug
>
>
>>>>> This year, Eli Biham and Rafi
>>>>> Chen, and separately Antoine Joux, announced some pretty impressive
>>>>> cryptographic results against MD5 and SHA. Collisions have been
>>>>> demonstrated in SHA. And there are rumors, unconfirmed at this
>>>>> writing, of results against SHA-1.
>>>>>
>>>>> The magnitude of these results depends on who you are. If you're a
>>>>> cryptographer, this is a huge deal. ....
>>>>>
>>>>> To a user of cryptographic systems -- as I assume most readers are --
>>>>> this news is important, but not particularly worrisome. MD5 and SHA
>>>>> aren't suddenly insecure. No one is going to be breaking digital
>>>>> signatures or reading encrypted messages anytime soon with these
>>>>> techniques. The electronic world is no less secure after these
>>>>> announcements than it was before.
>>>>
>>>   
>>
>
>
> Douglas White           National Institute of Standards and Technology
> National Software Reference Library - http://www.nsrl.nist.gov
> NIST, 100 Bureau Drive Stop 8970, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970
> Voice: 301-975-4761   Fax: 301-926-3696   Email:dou...@ni...
> My opinions aren't necessarily my employer's nor any other 
> organization's.
>        "It would be better if it was perfect."
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> sleuthkit-users mailing list
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sleuthkit-users
> http://www.sleuthkit.org
>