b*******a
发帖数: 675 | |
T********r
发帖数: 6210 | 2 Wow! All I can say is wow!
【在 b*******a 的大作中提到】
: They did it again.
: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html
|
w********u
发帖数: 71 | |
b******p
发帖数: 23 | 4 I don't get it.
"collisions in the the full SHA-1 in 2**69 hash operations"
isn't that much easier than 2**80 operations in brute force.
【在 b*******a 的大作中提到】
: They did it again.
: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html
|
z*******w
发帖数: 79 | 5 Remember they broke MD5 last year (August, I think).
This is a huge advancement from the last attack. Really great job!
【在 b*******a 的大作中提到】
: They did it again.
: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html
|
g***i
发帖数: 50 | 6 这个估计是她们刚投到Crypto2005的新paper, deadline是Feb 14.
Bruce Schneier看到了就忍不住先通报出来了。
Xiaoyun Wang刚中了Europt2005 两篇paper,(其中还有一片best paper, 据说定了),
现在又有这样一个重大的突破（估计录用也是没有问题了，如果技术没问题的话，best
paper也没大问题啊），正是厉害啊！
Support一下！
【在 b*******a 的大作中提到】
: They did it again.
: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html
|
j**o
发帖数: 4 | 7 That's exactly the point. I think what he means is, the brute force attack
will take 2**80 operations, but their paper used 2**69 operations to discover
collisions, therefore much better than the brute force.
【在 b******p 的大作中提到】
: I don't get it.
: "collisions in the the full SHA-1 in 2**69 hash operations"
: isn't that much easier than 2**80 operations in brute force.
|
T********r
发帖数: 6210 | 8 comment from a professor in my department:
> The paper in question is, I assume, "Collision Search Attacks on SHA1", by
> Xiaoyun WANG, Yiqun Lisa YIN, and Honbgo YU. A three page note, mailed to me
> privately yesterday, dated 13 Feb.
> It is not an attack on SHA1 in the sense of exhibiting collisions. It says
> instead that they have reduced the search for a collision to 2^69 hash
> operations (instead of the naive 2^80 operations). The note does not
> indicate the memory requirement for the
【在 b*******a 的大作中提到】
: They did it again.
: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html
|
b******p
发帖数: 23 | 9 Better than brute force? Yes.
SHA-1 broken? No.
【在 j**o 的大作中提到】
: That's exactly the point. I think what he means is, the brute force attack
: will take 2**80 operations, but their paper used 2**69 operations to discover
: collisions, therefore much better than the brute force.
|
w***f
发帖数: 75 | 10 Just curious - Is it moral for a reviewer to disclose the content of paper
in submission as well as the authors' names ? I beleive there is a
non-disclosure agreement to restrict the reviewers. Although I believe
the original authors won't care, the reviewers may break some common
sense agreements already. |
w*******g
发帖数: 9932 | 11 it is not being reviewed. it is just circulating in private.
【在 w***f 的大作中提到】
: Just curious - Is it moral for a reviewer to disclose the content of paper
: in submission as well as the authors' names ? I beleive there is a
: non-disclosure agreement to restrict the reviewers. Although I believe
: the original authors won't care, the reviewers may break some common
: sense agreements already.
|
w***f
发帖数: 75 | 12 Someone said it might be a submission to Crypto2005 (deadline Feb 14 2005).
【在 w*******g 的大作中提到】
: it is not being reviewed. it is just circulating in private.
|
g***i
发帖数: 50 | 13 I said that. But that's only a guess.
It should be just circulating in private.
paper
【在 w***f 的大作中提到】
: Someone said it might be a submission to Crypto2005 (deadline Feb 14 2005).
|
s*m
发帖数: 34 | 14 Xiaoyun Wang, Lisa Yin, Hongbo Yu
【在 w********u 的大作中提到】
: XIAOYUN WONG, ADMIRE!!!
:
: They did it again.
: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/02/sha1_broken.html
|
