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

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #351065

Re: LOL underestimated

From Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de>
Newsgroups comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject Re: LOL underestimated
Date 2016-04-20 23:50 +0200
Organization DNLA GmbH
Message-ID <nf8tc6$f5c$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (2 earlier) <fhjgda03.af3@rooftop.invalid> <20160420203110.1b2edf85@maxa-pc> <ghdmjbd.lo3@rooftop.invalid> <20160420232546.4804cf6f@maxa-pc> <ghjmbnjc03.are@rooftop.invalid>

Show all headers | View raw

owl wrote:

> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
>> owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:34:37 +0000 (UTC)
>>> > owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
>>> >   
>>> >> 
>>> >> I'm simultaneously running an attack on a particular hash over the
>>> >> entire address space (those eight small windows in the vid).
>>> >>   
>>> > 
>>> > https://eprint.iacr.org/2006/105
>>> > Tunnels in Hash Functions: MD5 Collisions Within a Minute
>>> 
>>> Unless I'm misunderstanding things, that's just generating collision
>>> pairs.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume that all attacks
>>> against a hash still require a dictionary of hashes (which is what
>>> I'm generating).
>>> 
>> 
>> If you find collision of particular length, you have probable
>> solution...
> 
> Length of what?
> Can you give me a layman's executive summary of how the described
> approach can reveal the original input given only the known hash?

There is none. The MD5 collisions just give another set of data which will 
return the same MD5 hash. You don't get a peek at the original data

For that very reason linux packages protected by MD5 are still safe, because 
a "forged" package would not be runable in any way. There is no way to alter 
a program (with the intent of introducing malware) and expecting to get the 
original MD5 hash. All the supercomputers existing don't have enough time to 
compute that before crumbling to rust and sand

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 15:10 +0000
  Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 16:55 +0000
    Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 17:25 +0000
      Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 18:45 +0000
        Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-20 18:47 +0000
          Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:05 +0000
            Re: LOL underestimated vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-04-25 19:07 +0000
              Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-25 21:16 +0000
        Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 20:51 +0200
  Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 19:19 +0200
    Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 17:34 +0000
      Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 20:31 +0200
        Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:13 +0000
          Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:20 +0200
            Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:29 +0000
              Re: LOL underestimated Me Sham <osirus47@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 14:33 -0700
                Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:58 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:04 +0000
          Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:25 +0200
            Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 21:41 +0000
              Re: LOL underestimated Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 23:50 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:06 +0000
                Re: LOL underestimated Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-21 08:54 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 17:12 +0000
              Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:50 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2016-04-20 23:51 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-20 23:59 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:10 +0000
                Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 00:11 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-20 22:19 +0000
                Re: LOL underestimated Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-04-21 00:57 +0200
                Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 00:07 +0000
      Re: LOL underestimated DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-20 23:17 -0400
        Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 03:49 +0000
          Re: LOL underestimated DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-04-21 10:27 -0400
            Re: LOL underestimated owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-04-21 16:26 +0000

csiph-web