On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:20:57PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
> On 9/5/06, Michael Rogers wrote:
> >-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >Matthew Toseland wrote:
> >> We will be using STS, at least initially. Which means checking a
> >> signature.
> >
> >Cool, IANAC but I think
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 12:20:57PM -0400, Evan Daniel wrote:
On 9/5/06, Michael Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
We will be using STS, at least initially. Which means checking a
signature.
Cool, IANAC but I think we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> We will be using STS, at least initially. Which means checking a
> signature.
Cool, IANAC but I think we should be OK.
Cheers,
Michael
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
On 9/5/06, Michael Rogers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > We will be using STS, at least initially. Which means checking a
> > signature.
>
> Cool, IANAC but I think we should be OK.
As long as we're signing the data, not its hash; in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
We will be using STS, at least initially. Which means checking a
signature.
Cool, IANAC but I think we should be OK.
Cheers,
Michael
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
On 9/5/06, Michael Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
We will be using STS, at least initially. Which means checking a
signature.
Cool, IANAC but I think we should be OK.
As long as we're signing the data, not its hash; in
We will be using STS, at least initially. Which means checking a
signature.
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 07:25:14PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > What about in session setup?
>
> To be honest I don't know enough about
We will be using STS, at least initially. Which means checking a
signature.
On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 07:25:14PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
What about in session setup?
To be honest I don't know enough about the key
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
> What about in session setup?
To be honest I don't know enough about the key exchange protocol to give
an informed answer. If it's just a question of checking that a hash
matches a public key, we only need second preimage
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Matthew Toseland wrote:
What about in session setup?
To be honest I don't know enough about the key exchange protocol to give
an informed answer. If it's just a question of checking that a hash
matches a public key, we only need second preimage
What about in session setup?
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:49:23PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> > Hash function SHA-1 in distress
>
> As worrying as this is, I don't think it affects Freenet yet. The attack
>
What about in session setup?
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:49:23PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hash function SHA-1 in distress
As worrying as this is, I don't think it affects Freenet yet. The attack
undermines the
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 12:19:01PM +0200, freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> German text:
>
> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77235
>
> Babelfish-translated to english:
There's a better version at http://www.heise-security.co.uk/news/77244
rgds
Marco
I believe that Freenet uses SHA-256 which hasn't been
broken (yet).
--- Michael Rogers wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> > Hash function SHA-1 in distress
>
> As worrying as this is, I don't think it affects
> Freenet yet. The attack
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> Hash function SHA-1 in distress
As worrying as this is, I don't think it affects Freenet yet. The attack
undermines the collision-resistance of the hash function, but as far as
I know Freenet only makes use of
German text:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77235
Babelfish-translated to english:
Hash function SHA-1 in distress
Kryptoexperten demonstrated an extended attack method to the conference Crypto
2006 against a reduced variant of the hash algorithm SHA-1. With the new method
it
German text:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/77235
Babelfish-translated to english:
Hash function SHA-1 in distress
Kryptoexperten demonstrated an extended attack method to the conference Crypto
2006 against a reduced variant of the hash algorithm SHA-1. With the new method
it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hash function SHA-1 in distress
As worrying as this is, I don't think it affects Freenet yet. The attack
undermines the collision-resistance of the hash function, but as far as
I know Freenet only makes use of
I believe that Freenet uses SHA-256 which hasn't been
broken (yet).
--- Michael Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hash function SHA-1 in distress
As worrying as this is, I don't think it affects
Freenet yet. The
19 matches
Mail list logo
