cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1995-10-24 - Re: MD5 weakness ? [was Re: Netscape Logic Bomb detailed by IETF]

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Message Hash: 56fb5206610a406f5ed8f52eeef7d5ef163a5369efa622f541fddb4fdeed6ef6
Message ID: <199510242338.TAA07052@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199510241554.LAA27916@opine.cs.umass.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1995-10-24 23:38:31 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 16:38:31 PDT

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 95 16:38:31 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (Cypherpunks Mailing List)
Subject: Re: MD5 weakness ? [was Re: Netscape Logic Bomb detailed by IETF]
In-Reply-To: <199510241554.LAA27916@opine.cs.umass.edu>
Message-ID: <199510242338.TAA07052@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Futplex writes:
> I believe Dr. Cohen's point is that no-one knows, AFAIK, how to prove that a
> one-way hash is truly one-way (uninvertible). We cannot prove that MD5 is
> secure, ergo we cannot (completely) trust it. [Please correct if this is a
> substantially incorrect inference.]

There are hashes that can, in fact, be proven to have the properties
we assign to cryptographic hashes given certain modest assumptions
about some number theory problems and their complexity. True "proof"
is likely impossible.

Perry

Thread