Caution, the following contains a rant.
On Aug 19, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I understand that creaking is not a technical cryptography term,
but certainly is. When do we become certain that devastating
attacks on one feature of hash functions (collision resistance) have
any
On 2009 Aug 19, at 3:28 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 5:28 PM -0400 8/19/09, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
I believe attacks on Git's use of SHA-1 would require second pre-
image
attacks, and I don't think anyone has demonstrated such a thing for
SHA-1 at this point. None the less, I agree that it
Getting back towards topic, the hash function employed by Git is showing
signs of bitrot, which, given people's desire to introduce malware
backdoors and legal backdoors into Linux, could well become a problem in
the very near future.
James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
I believe attacks
[Moderator's note: this is getting a bit off topic, and I'd prefer to
limit followups. --Perry]
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 06:23 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
Ray Dillinger wrote:
If there is not an existing relationship (first time someone
uses an e-tailer) then there has to be a key
On 08/20/09 00:11, Ray Dillinger wrote:
No. This juvenile fantasy is complete and utter nonsense, and
I've heard people repeating it to each other far too often. If
you repeat it to each other too often you run the risk of starting
to believe it, and it will only get you in trouble. This is a
