1996-07-01 - Re: rsync and md4

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <perry@piermont.com>
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Message Hash: 75929b51f5946e3623edc7f6554a7e489e79b7f942bd9ef337114426c2d9c84a
Message ID: <199606301942.PAA18888@jekyll.piermont.com>
Reply To: <199606301849.LAA23313@netcom18.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-07-01 07:46:41 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:46:41 +0800

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 15:46:41 +0800
To: mpd@netcom.com (Mike Duvos)
Subject: Re: rsync and md4
In-Reply-To: <199606301849.LAA23313@netcom18.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199606301942.PAA18888@jekyll.piermont.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Mike Duvos writes:
> Perry writes:
> 
> > I'm afraid you are totally wrong here. MD4 has been completely
> > broken. I wouldn't trust it for anything. In fact, MD5 is no longer
> > trustworthy, either -- it was broken recently. Stick to SHA.
> 
> Has MD5 been broken again?  Or are you referring to that little
> collision problem which is unlikely to affect the security of the
> typical real life application?

I'm not refering to the old pseudocollision problem in the compression
from over a year back. A couple of months ago a real break was made as
I recall. It wasn't perfect but it was enough.





Thread