3 ms·

Are the people over there sure that it's a good idea to rely on the broken[1] MD5 and the close-to-be-broken[2] SHA-1 for verifying checksums in the context of

Are the people over there sure that it's a good idea to rely on the broken[1] MD5 and the close-to-be-broken[2] SHA-1 for verifying checksums in the context of malicious actors? Though I guess the hashes and file sizes differ, so I guess this is just being pedantic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5#Collision_vulnerabilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5#Collision_vulnerabilities [2] https://sites.google.com/site/itstheshappening/ https://sites.google.com/site/itstheshappening/

Grom_PE 10y ago
MD5 is broken in a sense that you can craft two different files with the same hash, but it's still hard to create a file with specific MD5 hash. So it's still good for identifying files that aren't specifically crafted to have a malicious counterpart.
kalleboo 10y ago
It seems more reliable to check the developer signature in Properties on the EXE - the correct developer is "Ivaylo Beltchev". The infected download is unsigned and requires you to click through a warning.
- warbiscuit 10y ago
  Though annoyingly it's signed using sha1, not sha256. So if they were gonna put effort into making an sha1 collision, they'd probably target the signed payload, not the overall exe. Though it doesn't look like sha1 is that broken yet, for the budget of this grade of attacker.
marcosdumay 10y ago
From this use case, where one person makes a file, and then an attacker forges another one with the same hash, MD5 was just recently broken and SHA-1 is far from it. Also, it's not immediately clear if a pair of broken hashes is also broken or not (depends on many things, and I probably don't even know half of them). So, I'd say this is safe, for now. Yet, I also get bad feelings when somebody either comes with an MD5 hash or uses a SHA-1 as the most secure option.

3 ms·

Are the people over there sure that it's a good idea to rely on the broken[1] MD5 and the close-to-be-broken[2] SHA-1 for verifying checksums in the context of

by beefhash 10y ago

Grom_PE 10y ago
MD5 is broken in a sense that you can craft two different files with the same hash, but it's still hard to create a file with specific MD5 hash. So it's still good for identifying files that aren't specifically crafted to have a malicious counterpart.
kalleboo 10y ago
It seems more reliable to check the developer signature in Properties on the EXE - the correct developer is "Ivaylo Beltchev". The infected download is unsigned and requires you to click through a warning.
- warbiscuit 10y ago
  Though annoyingly it's signed using sha1, not sha256. So if they were gonna put effort into making an sha1 collision, they'd probably target the signed payload, not the overall exe. Though it doesn't look like sha1 is that broken yet, for the budget of this grade of attacker.
marcosdumay 10y ago
From this use case, where one person makes a file, and then an attacker forges another one with the same hash, MD5 was just recently broken and SHA-1 is far from it. Also, it's not immediately clear if a pair of broken hashes is also broken or not (depends on many things, and I probably don't even know half of them). So, I'd say this is safe, for now. Yet, I also get bad feelings when somebody either comes with an MD5 hash or uses a SHA-1 as the most secure option.