On Monday 04 Jul 2005 14:10, Shaun Lipscombe wrote: > On the gpg mailing list they basically came to the conclusion that SHA-1 > is *weaker* than previously thought based on the fact that collisions > can be found in SHA-1 in 2**69 hash operations, much less than the > brute-force attack of 2**80 operations based on the hash length. > > but...... 2**69 however, is still quite strong [1] ;-) My worry with SHA-1 is that, beyond being weaker than first thought, it has a flaw that wasn't originally known. Makes me wonder what else might be wrong with it that they inventors missed... -- Lee Braiden http://www.DigitalUnleashed.com
Attachment:
pgp0X9L6geFZK.pgp
Description: PGP signature