SHA1 collisions proven possisble
mpalmer at hezmatt.org
Thu Mar 2 03:49:12 UTC 2017
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 03:42:12AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> James DeVincentis via NANOG wrote:
> > On top of that, the calculations they did were for a stupidly simple
> > document modification in a type of document where hiding extraneous
> > data is easy. This will get exponentially computationally more
> > expensive the more data you want to mask. It took nine quintillion
> > computations in order to mask a background color change in a PDF.
> > And again, the main counter-point is being missed. Both the good and
> > bad documents have to be brute forced which largely defeats the
> > purpose. Tthose numbers of computing hours are a brute force. It may
> > be a simplified brute force, but still a brute force.
> > The hype being generated is causing management at many places to cry
> > exactly what Google wanted, “Wolf! Wolf!”.
> The Reaction state table described in
> https://valerieaurora.org/hash.html appears to be entertainingly accurate.
With particular reference to the "slashdotter" column.
More information about the NANOG