William Allen Simpson wrote: > Apparently, you never read the original rationale for > MD5. It still does what it was intended to do....
MD5 was intended to identify the thing being hashed uniquely. If it is possible to produce multiple plausible human readable texts that say different things yet give the same MD5 hash, it does not do what it was intended to do. James A. Donald: >> If it is a certifier, these are not "its" documents. William Allen Simpson: > If it is a certifier, it damn well better be its own > documents! A notary is a certifier. Have you ever seen a notary read the stuff he notarizes, let alone generate it? > Look at the original message: > > This implies a vulnerability in software integrity > protection and code signing schemes that still use > MD5. Suppose you sign a contract - by signing the MD5 hash of the contract. Unfortunately the guy who prepared the contract prepared two slightly different contracts, one of which is more favorable to him and less favorable to you than the one you actually signed. Both contracts have the same MD5 hash. --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
