On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Andreas Rottmann wrote: > Karel Gardas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:57:15PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote: > >> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:46:28PM +0100, Karel Gardas wrote: > >> > > > Sorry! That's just my short-cut of the whole problem. As I've > >> > > > already written I don't agree fully with Ivan's statements, > >> > > > but this does not change anything on the fact that MD5 is > >> > > > broken. > >> > > > >> > > MD5 is not broken. That's a myth. Stop spreading it. > >> > > >> > Perhaps `MD5 is broken' is not the best description of the problem, but > >> > let say `MD5 is not collision free'. > > > Not being collision-free is a property of all possible hash functions > where the hash value is shorter than the hashed value.
Sorry, this is a misunderstadning, I mean "collision-free" in following meaning: "One-way hash functions are supposed to have two properties. One, they're one way. This means that it is easy to take a message and compute the hash value, but it's impossible to take a hash value and recreate the original message. (By 'impossible' I mean 'can't be done in any reasonable amount of time.') Two, they're collision free. This means that it is impossible to find two messages that hash to the same hash value. The cryptographic reasoning behind these two properties is subtle, and I invite curious readers to learn more in my book Applied Cryptography." http://lwn.net/Articles/127667/ Cheers, Karel -- Karel Gardas [EMAIL PROTECTED] ObjectSecurity Ltd. http://www.objectsecurity.com _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
