[Full-disclosure] MD5 algorithm considered toxic (and harmful)
steven at securityzone.org
Sat Dec 1 15:20:53 GMT 2007
> There you have it. Surely a GPL'd tool implementing this attack style
> will be available shortly. And since Chinese researchers have been
> attacking SHA-1 lately, should SHA-256 be considered the proper
> replacement? I am unsure :-(
Yes, it would probably be a good idea. I think this link has been put out
on this list in the past with respect to discussion on SHA-1:
NIST might not be the bible to you on what to follow and implement, but
they are definitely worth listening to (even if you're not a U.S. Federal
agency) when they tell you not to use something anymore. For those that
don't want to click and just want to read, here's the relevant parts:
March 15, 2006: The SHA-2 family of hash functions (i.e., SHA-224,
SHA-256, SHA-384 and SHA-512) may be used by Federal agencies for all
applications using secure hash algorithms. Federal agencies should stop
using SHA-1 for digital signatures, digital time stamping and other
applications that require collision resistance as soon as practical, and
must use the SHA-2 family of hash functions for these applications after
2010. After 2010, Federal agencies may use SHA-1 only for the following
applications: hash-based message authentication codes (HMACs); key
derivation functions (KDFs); and random number generators (RNGs).
Regardless of use, NIST encourages application and protocol designers to
use the SHA-2 family of hash functions for all new applications and
> Kristian Erik Hermansen
> "I have no special talent. I am only passionately curious."
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Full-Disclosure is hosted and sponsored by Secunia.