Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #17966 > unrolled thread

[Link Posting] [Cfrg] Notice on chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  [Link Posting] [Cfrg] Notice on chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2019-05-12 03:11 +0000
    Re: [Link Posting] [Cfrg] Notice on chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-05-13 11:29 +0000
      Re: [Link Posting] [Cfrg] Notice on chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-05-13 14:16 +0000
        Re: [Link Posting] [Cfrg] Notice on chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-05-13 17:42 +0000
          Re: [Link Posting] [Cfrg] Notice on chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 Bob Eager <news0073@eager.cx> - 2019-05-13 21:05 +0000
            Re: [Link Posting] [Cfrg] Notice on chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2019-05-13 22:40 +0000
          Re: [Link Posting] [Cfrg] Notice on chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2019-05-14 00:18 +0000

#17966 — [Link Posting] [Cfrg] Notice on chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1

      ####################################################################
      # ATTENTION: This post is a reference to a website.  The poster of #
      # this Usenet article is not the author of the referenced website. #
      ####################################################################

<URL:https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/NhiGvOFzcEw108YLwF_ndyfB
1k4>

The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>
>  We, Gaetan Leurent and myself, would like to emphasize some results we
>  will present in a few days at Eurocrypt 2019 [LP19]. ePrint version
>  available here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/459.pdf
>
>  [TL;DR] Chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 hash function are now
>  practical (cost lower than 100K $), all hope is lost.
>
>  As you might know, SHA-1 hash function has been broken theoretically
>  since 2005 [W+05] and an actual collision was computed in 2017 [S+17].
>  This clearly makes SHA-1 a function to avoid, but even though
>  deprecation efforts have been conducted since many years, SHA-1 is still
>  used in several security products and RFC standards (TLS 1.2, git, ...)
>
>  Finding a collision attack breaks the hash function, but the actual
>  damage that can be done with such a collision is somewhat limited as the
>  attacker will have little to no control on the actual data that
>  collides. A much more interesting attack is to find a so-called
>  chosen-prefix collision, where the attacker can freely choose the prefix
>  for the two colliding messages. This was for example used to create
>  rogue-CA for MD5 [S+09] and in general chosen-prefix collision attacks
>  have a huge impact on security [BL16].
>
>  ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#17980

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Rich wrote:
> [...]
> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>
>>  We, Gaetan Leurent and myself, would like to emphasize some results we
>>  will present in a few days at Eurocrypt 2019 [LP19]. ePrint version
>>  available here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/459.pdf
>>
>>  [TL;DR] Chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 hash function are now
>>  practical (cost lower than 100K $), all hope is lost.

Finally, something I can use to back up "this is bad, and you should
feel bad" when people want to keep from upgrading their ancient setups.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlzZVQYACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFn+Qf/VF0MKjbpWaRJ86xuv03qJdrWgoZKPWfrqKIDzrb5Ro4wLgfjFAJzeHd6
bRmasEIYyntMXx+5IZX+Mj6gOSk00zfDRdbjL3lBKOF8bwhoew53MaJHm55WgxML
6UN+xNKT8/SUOn6mITsDFivqfeKaqPbVJRVW1rj/Qd8b9o+5OAmrwSkun6WRPxX1
zGJNJAjibV0I1gDuy6w7688yYMHC3oWEwKofYBogRHSXlaCXTv6jJZ5OMfpZY3wH
/6zIcBFbR0uPmlVJu4mnRusskkDIsAlH4c0T7hmPm/CBxBj0U8O3fcYJAe/fQo7H
Snb7rIchSSIou3DMgRSryeXGqgFHdA==
=84qV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
|_|O|_| 
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17983

On 2019-05-13, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>
> Rich wrote:
>> [...]
>> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>>
>>>  We, Gaetan Leurent and myself, would like to emphasize some results we
>>>  will present in a few days at Eurocrypt 2019 [LP19]. ePrint version
>>>  available here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/459.pdf
>>>
>>>  [TL;DR] Chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 hash function are now
>>>  practical (cost lower than 100K $), all hope is lost.
>
> Finally, something I can use to back up "this is bad, and you should
> feel bad" when people want to keep from upgrading their ancient setups.

I banned SHA1 at ${MEGABANK} as soon as the theoretical breaks
became known, with full support of management.


-- 
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my
              attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17984

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Huge wrote:
> On 2019-05-13, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>>
>> Rich wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>>>
>>>>  We, Gaetan Leurent and myself, would like to emphasize some results we
>>>>  will present in a few days at Eurocrypt 2019 [LP19]. ePrint version
>>>>  available here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/459.pdf
>>>>
>>>>  [TL;DR] Chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 hash function are now
>>>>  practical (cost lower than 100K $), all hope is lost.
>>
>> Finally, something I can use to back up "this is bad, and you should
>> feel bad" when people want to keep from upgrading their ancient setups.
>
> I banned SHA1 at ${MEGABANK} as soon as the theoretical breaks
> became known, with full support of management.

Can I work for you?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlzZrHIACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooG+lggAp39uCWubG6SoZxjaLf5JYhWMHhTZOV4gm3q4FVD8vxMmB17cNWrLi+Y/
JbammMx8EgIXODbvj8awGYCuYrTyD+pS5gVZBEqYsI5VX9Oymaw3jEW3D3xFDg9X
L81ZrQYm9E1Wvf99S20+CPQuLV84x6ZPSTUfGXHtssrQIXK4Lm5SUf4UOPC6Y8Wd
lbsVDeREpHJV5I0BIlAiQNBR/NAOJU1sq7ILUvVTzHcWLKqe8AvkqvfGue+EV4XP
A4o7Mdtl7A+b3nVtcGDXZL7AbxBIFmtdiXrGE587wiNgKP5+ELa842YErEJCtNwA
M2qr6/YLyjMwzr4zk08MqX96+Z7JGg==
=LwLz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
|_|O|_| 
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17986

On Mon, 13 May 2019 17:42:10 +0000, Dan Purgert wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
> 
> Huge wrote:
>> On 2019-05-13, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>>>>
>>>>>  We, Gaetan Leurent and myself, would like to emphasize some results
>>>>>  we will present in a few days at Eurocrypt 2019 [LP19]. ePrint
>>>>>  version available here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/459.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>  [TL;DR] Chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 hash function are now
>>>>>  practical (cost lower than 100K $), all hope is lost.
>>>
>>> Finally, something I can use to back up "this is bad, and you should
>>> feel bad" when people want to keep from upgrading their ancient
>>> setups.
>>
>> I banned SHA1 at ${MEGABANK} as soon as the theoretical breaks became
>> known, with full support of management.
> 
> Can I work for you?

He is proudly retired.

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17987

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Bob Eager wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2019 17:42:10 +0000, Dan Purgert wrote:
>> [...]
>> Can I work for you?
>
> He is proudly retired.

Drat.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlzZ8mAACgkQjhHd8xJ5
ooFRiQf/Y70zgu80CzYlxryAm+jzjqJ1uk+FDvFr4KUy6N0OCL8CkdrXbq4Xr2+c
9GpVQwv2whQlW/y3qk0h1iQc9jNrvIc4a1pP1x//E+hSEW92FmIsYURXX8UtVsT2
GYHh5X8CXvs8CbkAHiTzTyJJsqGnxOkD0memTDslJzLUE1fg9w9w7l+FKoaaWAn8
/e3kx4DbX/Pei+kxUGTd8XP0y97PEQfDQnU2wd1HhUfbud4vAkMMMeCaozyNa+Bd
rfKj1ig1JRJ0v9VAOkmBb1PH+WMa/G50vXLuAIvUe9hU3F7igJI/UAeP855odk/D
UuufSgJS+5FOD0AL/dAYaO9QpaAhrw==
=5Ihn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- 
|_|O|_| 
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5  4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#17990

On 2019-05-13, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>
> Huge wrote:
>> On 2019-05-13, Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Rich wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> The text below is a quotation from the URL above:
>>>>>
>>>>>  We, Gaetan Leurent and myself, would like to emphasize some results we
>>>>>  will present in a few days at Eurocrypt 2019 [LP19]. ePrint version
>>>>>  available here: https://eprint.iacr.org/2019/459.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>  [TL;DR] Chosen-prefix collisions for SHA-1 hash function are now
>>>>>  practical (cost lower than 100K $), all hope is lost.
>>>
>>> Finally, something I can use to back up "this is bad, and you should
>>> feel bad" when people want to keep from upgrading their ancient setups.
>>
>> I banned SHA1 at ${MEGABANK} as soon as the theoretical breaks
>> became known, with full support of management.
>
> Can I work for you?

Sadly not.  Partly because I'm cranky, but mainly because I'm retired.


-- 
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my
              attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web