Security team successfully cracks SSL using 200 PS3's and MD5

Dorn Hetzel dhetzel at gmail.com
Sat Jan 3 08:38:10 CST 2009


Would using the combination of both MD5 and SHA-1 raise the computational
bar enough for now, or are there other good prospects for a harder to crack
hash?

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM, William Warren <
hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> wrote:

> Dragos Ruiu wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2-Jan-09, at 9:56 AM, Robert Mathews (OSIA) wrote:
>>
>>  Joe Greco wrote:
>>>
>>>> [ ....  ]
>>>>
>>>> Either we take the potential for transparent MitM attacks seriously, or
>>>> we do not.  I'm sure the NSA would prefer "not."  :-)
>>>>
>>>> As for the points raised in your message, yes, there are additional
>>>> problems with clients that have not taken this seriously.  It is,
>>>> however,
>>>> one thing to have locks on your door that you do not lock, and another
>>>> thing entirely not to have locks (and therefore completely lack the
>>>> ability to lock).  I hope that there is some serious thought going on in
>>>> the browser groups about this sort of issue.
>>>>
>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>
>>>> ... JG
>>>>
>>>
>>> F Y I, see:
>>>
>>> SSL Blacklist 4.0 - for a Firefox extension able to detect 'bad'
>>> certificates @
>>> http://www.codefromthe70s.org/sslblacklist.aspx
>>>
>>> Best.
>>>
>>
>> Snort rule to detect said...
>>
>> url: http://vrt-sourcefire.blogspot.com/2009/01/md5-actually-harmful.html
>>
>> alert tcp $EXTERNAL_NET $HTTP_PORTS -> $HOME_NET any (msg:"POLICY Weak SSL
>> OSCP response -- MD5 usage"; content:"content-type:
>> application/ocsp-response"; content:"2A 86 48 86 F7 0D 01 01 05"; metadata:
>> policy security-ips drop, service http; reference: url,
>> www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/; classtype: policy-violation;
>> sid:1000001;)
>>
>> cheers,
>> --dr
>>
>> --
>> World Security Pros. Cutting Edge Training, Tools, and Techniques
>> Vancouver, Canada  March 16-20 2009  http://cansecwest.com
>> London, U.K. May 27/28 2009 http://eusecwest.com
>> pgpkey http://dragos.com/ kyxpgp
>>
>>
>>
>>  Everyone seems to be stampeding to SHA-1..yet it was broken in 2005.  So
> we trade MD5 for SHA-1?  This makes no sense.
>
>



More information about the NANOG mailing list