PlayStation 3 predicts next US president

[James A. Donald]

Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
 >> Keep in mind that the notary is still 'careful' --
 >> effectively they sign the hash -- rather than the
 >> document; and state either such (e.g. in the case of
 >> some software/code where you do not hand over the
 >> actual code) or state that _a_ document was presented
 >> with said hash.

William Allen Simpson wrote:
 > And that makes all the difference.  The digital notary
 > is not certifying the original document.  You
 > described the notary generating its own tuples
 > (credentials as presented, the hash, a timestamp, and
 > a notarized declaration that such was presented).
 > There is no problem, and the described attack does not
 > apply.

The described attack does apply:  The notary has
complied with normal procedures and with the rules, but
the rules and procedure fail to have the desired effect,
because an MD5 hash lacks the desired properties.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com