From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 28 16:27:34 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCE5A16A4CE; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:27:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pd4mo2so.prod.shaw.ca (shawidc-mo1.cg.shawcable.net [24.71.223.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB3A43D2D; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:27:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk) Received: from pd5mr3so.prod.shaw.ca (pd5mr3so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.144]) by l-daemon (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I4R005HDF1Y6PA0@l-daemon>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:27:34 -0600 (MDT) Received: from pn2ml6so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.150]) by pd5mr3so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0I4R003VLF1YLHK0@pd5mr3so.prod.shaw.ca>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:27:34 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [192.168.0.60] (S0106006067227a4a.vc.shawcable.net [24.87.233.42])2003)) with ESMTP id <0I4R0031NF1XD6@l-daemon>; Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:27:34 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:27:33 -0700 From: Colin Percival In-reply-to: <20040928161359.GA22274@VARK.MIT.EDU> To: David Schultz Message-id: <415990F5.4040505@wadham.ox.ac.uk> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en References: <20011107211316.A7830@nomad.lets.net> <20040925140242.GB78219@gothmog.gr> <41575DFC.9020206@wadham.ox.ac.uk> <20040927091710.GC914@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv> <41582024.2080205@wadham.ox.ac.uk> <20040928161359.GA22274@VARK.MIT.EDU> User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040928) cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: compare-by-hash (was Re: sharing /etc/passwd) X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting] List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:27:35 -0000 David Schultz wrote: > ... In fact, recent results have > raised some concerns about SHA-1 (http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/146/). I have yet to hear any justification for claims that the SHA-0 attack implies a weakness in SHA-1. The paper you cite even says "Due to the additional rotate instruction, the results of this paper are not applicable to SHA-1". Colin Percival