At 17:58 -0500 2006/11/08, Leichter, Jerry wrote: No, SHA-1 is holding on (by a thread) because of differences in the details of the algorithm - details it shares with SHA-256. I don't think anyone will seriously argue that if SHA-1 is shown to be as vulnerable as we now know ND5 to be, then
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006, Travis H. wrote: On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 05:58:41PM -0500, Leichter, Jerry wrote: Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. If your HWRNG leaks 64 bits, you might as well assume it leaks 256. When it comes to leaks of this sort, the only interesting numbers are 0 and all.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sonntag, 17. September 2006 06:01 For another example of just how badly this kind of thing can be done, look at this code excerpt from Firefox version 220.127.116.11, which is the fixed version. There are two PKCS-1 parsing
re: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm25.htm#46 Flaw exploited in RFID-enabled passports Budapest Declaration on Machine Readable Travel Documents (MRTDs)