Sebastian Hilbert wrote: > On Tuesday 30 August 2005 02:23, Syan Tan wrote: > >>the problem with the networked gnotary idea seemed to be uptake : would >>people who ran gnotaries always be independent ? > > >>Hashing the logs and publishing it in a paper seems to be a good idea. At a > document level, if the document was a program and the program was > obfuscatable, and the hash was md5 , then you could do the >>2-documents-in-1-with-switching-on-the-identically-hashing-appended-block >>attack.
Yes, but the Daum and Lucks attack (2 documents-in-one), although clever, is trivial to discover and now that it is described, every document whcih is a programme (i.e Postscript, PDF, MS-Word, OpenOffice doc etc etc - needs to be inspected using a byte editor to check for the attack, and not just printed out. > The hash is not md5 nut sha256 and ripmd160. I hope this makes a differences. > If not. Tough luck. SHA256 is thought to be quite safe against both colision and pre-image attacks for now. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gnumed-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnumed-devel
