On 08/20/09 00:11, Ray Dillinger wrote:
No. This juvenile fantasy is complete and utter nonsense, and
I've heard people repeating it to each other far too often. If
you repeat it to each other too often you run the risk of starting
to believe it, and it will only get you in trouble. This is a
[Moderator's note: this is getting a bit off topic, and I'd prefer to
limit followups. --Perry]
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 06:23 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:
> Ray Dillinger wrote:
> > If there is not an existing relationship (first time someone
> > uses an e-tailer) then there has to be a key depos
> Getting back towards topic, the hash function employed by Git is showing
> signs of bitrot, which, given people's desire to introduce malware
> backdoors and legal backdoors into Linux, could well become a problem in
> the very near future.
>
> "James A. Donald"
> I believe attacks on Git's
On 2009 Aug 19, at 3:28 , Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 5:28 PM -0400 8/19/09, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
I believe attacks on Git's use of SHA-1 would require second pre-
image
attacks, and I don't think anyone has demonstrated such a thing for
SHA-1 at this point. None the less, I agree that it would
Caution, the following contains a rant.
On Aug 19, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
I understand that "creaking" is not a technical cryptography term,
but "certainly" is. When do we become "certain" that devastating
attacks on one feature of hash functions (collision resistance) have
a