3 ms·
I see; on Vista and above, certain fields in the certificate prevent it from being accepted for code signature. So they did a collision attack to create a sligh
by 0x0 14y ago
I see; on Vista and above, certain fields in the certificate prevent it from being accepted for code signature. So they did a collision attack to create a slightly twisted certificate where all those fields are tucked away in a useless segment and ignored.
Are there any details on what's new with this particular attack, compared to the known previously published ones? Why wouldn't earlier public research (such as that ps3 fake SSL CA stunt) suffice?
- marshray 14y agoI believe the phrase you're searching for is "awesome applied crypto research." :-) http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/ http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/ We don't yet have details on the differences. I've looked at the evil colliding cert and, AFAICT, the "MD5 Considered Harmful" technique would probably have been sufficient to pull this off.
- 0x0 14y agoThanks for the clarification. The rogue-ca thing is awesome indeed! :)