On 2009-01-07 at 11:05 -0800, Phil Pennock wrote:
> The new hole above looks as though it's useful for a direct
> man-in-the-middle, but for as long as you accept certificates where a
> path in the trust chain uses MD5 signatures you're also up a dark creek
> without a paddle.  Expecting users to start checking the hash algorithms
> for bank sites, etc, is a definite non-starter.  Until the NIST
> competition yields a new standard hash algorithm it looks as though
> we're using the less-broken SHA1 for certs.

Sorry to follow up to myself, but before pedants start pointing it out:
yes, I know we have the SHA2 family of hash functions, such as
SHA-256/SHA-512, but in practice AIUI they're not widely supported in
older browsers, so a CA which wants to issue widely usable certs has a
choice of MD5 or SHA1.

My understanding from following what cryptographers write is that the
SHA2 stuff is better than SHA1 but has some of the same theoretical
basis so there is cause for concern and the current NIST competition
could ideally have started sooner.

So when checking your certs and replacing MD5 certs, and when checking
your code, keep good notes and treat this as a practice run.  In the
next couple of years, you're likely to need to repeat this at least
once, possibly twice (MD5->SHA1->SHA-512->new_SHA3_algorithm).

I'm trying to find authoritative sources on which hash algorithms are
supported by which browsers, hoping to skip a step and go MD5->SHA-512
or the like; if anyone wants to see the candidates, they're in RFCs 3279
and 4055.  3279 gives us MD2, MD5 and SHA1.  4055 pulls in the PKCS#1
updates (RFC 3447) and allocates the codes for SHA-224, SHA-256, SHA-384
and SHA-512.  That happened in 2005.

If anyone has pointers to decent information on what is supported by the
crypto used in various browsers, that would be appreciated.  :)

Thanks,
-Phil
_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
 http://lopsa.org/

Reply via email to