[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Digital signing of printed documents

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

Attachment: pgpRHjW9OvzGg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: