On 06/10/2012 03:03 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
Does this mean they've seen the original certificate in addition to
the evil twin?
Until then, there is another explanation besides an advance in
cryptanalysis. Just saying. 8-)
I guess I look at it like this:
Start with the simplest explanation:
e0 - attacker implements cert collision attack much like that
demonstrated by Stevens et al. in 2008, but having some
different characteristics
Then take each explanation in turn from the e1 - eN other possible
explanations like:
e1 - attacker compromises system holding the RSA signing key
e2 - attacker bribes Microsoft personnel into issuing evil cert
e3 - attacker factors 1024 bit RSA
e4 - attacker finds second preimage on MD5
e5 - ... and so on
Then to that explanation add the additional requirement:
... *and* fools Marc Stevens into thinking it's a cert collision
attack much like that demonstrated in 2008, but having
some different characteristics.
So it's an advance in cryptanalysis either way. :-)
- Marsh
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
