My understanding that the kind of birthday attack under discussion would
start at 80-bits if SHA-1 (at 160-bits) were 100% secure. The attack
under discussion is reported to reduce that to the neighborhood of
60-something bits.
I am not a mathematician though, so I would be perfectly willing to
be
3APA3A wrote:
> I know meaning of 'hash function' term, I wrote few articles on
> challenge-response authentication and I did few hash functions
> implementations for hashtables and authentication in FreeRADIUS and
> 3proxy. Can I claim my right for sarcasm after call
> Cracking a hash would [...]. There are an infinite number of
> messages that all hash to the same value.
Yes, but there's no guarantee that this is true of any particular hash
value, such as the one you're intersted in, only that there exists at
least one hash value that it's true of.
(At leas
3APA3A wrote:
> First, by reading 'crack' I thought lady can recover full message by
> it's signature. After careful reading she can bruteforce collisions 2000
> times faster.
Cracking a hash would never mean recovering the full original message,
except for possibly messages that were smaller
