Am 20.06.2012 23:52, schrieb Stefan Fritsch: >> you do not need the original password! >> you only need a hash-collision and can leave out >> special chars completly to find one > > You need a password that gives the same value after 1000 rounds of > md5(password md5(password md5(password ...))). This is much more > expensive to find with brute force than a password that gives a > collision for a single md5
everybody with crypto knowledge will explain you that you are totally wrong - i can only try in my words! in the context of a hash-collision and rainbow-tables you need any string producing the same hash, no matter if 1, 10 or 1000 times md5() recursion there is a reason why even the developer of md5crypt saw the need for a offical statement that md5crypt should never again be considered as secure in any case! -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: CVE-2012-3287: md5crypt is no longer considered safe Datum: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:04:49 GMT Von: [email protected] An: [email protected] The LinkedIn password incompetence has resulted in a number of "just use md5crypt and you'll be fine" pieces of advice on the net. Since I no longer consider this to be the case, I have issued an official statement, as the author of md5crypt, to the opposite effect: http://phk.freebsd.dk/sagas/md5crypt_eol.html Please find something better now. Thanks for using my code. Poul-Henning Kamp
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
