From owner-freebsd-security Fri Feb 14 18:13:23 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA20536 for security-outgoing; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:13:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from pdx1.world.net (pdx1.world.net [192.243.32.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA20531 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:13:18 -0800 (PST) From: proff@suburbia.net Received: from suburbia.net (suburbia.net [203.4.184.1]) by pdx1.world.net (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id SAA12768 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 1997 18:14:47 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 1799 invoked by uid 110); 15 Feb 1997 02:12:45 -0000 Message-ID: <19970215021245.1798.qmail@suburbia.net> Subject: Re: blowfish passwords in FreeBSD In-Reply-To: <199702142048.VAA08594@bengt> from Mats Lofkvist at "Feb 14, 97 09:48:22 pm" To: mal@bengt.algonet.se (Mats Lofkvist) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 13:12:45 +1100 (EST) Cc: security@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-security@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > Why did they feel the need for something better than md5? > Is there any known weaknesses in md5? 128 bits is enough to make md5 > extremely secure until someone finds a serious flaw in the algorithm, > brute force attacks will probably never be a problem. Further, md5 as a signature algorithm is exportable, while blowfish is not. md5 does have some flaws, but not in this context. -- Prof. Julian Assange |If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people |together to collect wood and don't assign them tasks proff@iq.org |and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless proff@gnu.ai.mit.edu |immensity of the sea. -- Antoine de Saint Exupery