PlayStation 3 predicts next US president
William Allen Simpson
william.allen.simpson at gmail.com
Sat Dec 1 11:11:35 EST 2007
Weger, B.M.M. de wrote:
> See http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/Nostradamus if you want to know
> the details of what this has to do with cryptography.
It always bothers me as these things are announced, but are based on
presumptions that have absolutely no relevance in the real world....
Therefore, nothing to do with cryptography (which is not a parlor trick).
> This implies a vulnerability in software integrity protection and
> code signing schemes that still use MD5.
> See http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/SoftIntCodeSign for details.
There is no such MD5 vulnerability implied. As the paper itself states:
In cryptographic terms: our attack is an attack on collision resistance,
not on preimage or second preimage resistance. This implies that both
colliding files have to be specially prepared by the attacker, before
they are published on a download site or presented for signing by a code
signing scheme. Existing files with a known hash that have not been
prepared in this way are not vulnerable.
Since this "attack" requires the certifier be compromised, the attacker
could also modify the program data itself undetectably. That is, this
theoretical problem actually is more effort than the obvious attack!
In summary, there are exactly zero instances where this use of MD5 would
actually present a vulnerability.
As many discussions in this community have amply demonstrated, trust is
not transitive. At some point, you have to "know" (usually by reputation)
the chip-vendor, compiler-writer, et alia, are not compromised. Therefore,
many of us compile our own systems and packages (as much as practical).
Over the many years we have designed protocols using MDx, we were always
aware that a mere hashing function could never perfectly protect against
prefix or suffix data extension. Therefore, (I for one) always design
with a prefix chosen by the certifier, and a suffix nonce or counter
publicly shared with (preferably chosen by) the verifier.
For example, see PPP CHAP (originally written circa 1991).
The only cryptographic question is how to quantify the strength of the
collision resistance. CRC, FCS, MD2, MD4, MD5, SHA1, SHA256 -- they all
have some level, and that is useful to determine the practical application
for the function.
The base complexity assumptions are (have always been) 2 to the:
None of these have ever been out of the realm of possibility. Yet we all
have long known that SHA1 is stronger than MD2, which is stronger than MD5,
which is stronger than MD4. We also have long known that FCS and CRC are
perfectly acceptable for many integrity applications.
How much stronger is an interesting result. The rest is merely academic.
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com
More information about the cryptography