4 ms·

Well, MD5 attacks are actually quite old news[1,2,3,4]. There even are some open source projects to help you find them[5]. Would love to hear more details on wh

Well, MD5 attacks are actually quite old news[1,2,3,4]. There even are some open source projects to help you find them[5]. Would love to hear more details on what was the breakthrough that Flame introduced. Edit: The breakthrough that Flame introduced can be read here[8, 9] SHA-1 is not yet broken, as MD5 is, but fortunately we are having the SHA-3[6] competition (like we had for AES[7]). [1] http://www.springerlink.com/content/d7pm142n58853467/?MUD=MP http://www.springerlink.com/content/d7pm142n58853467/?MUD=MP [2] http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/CIS.2009.214 http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/CIS.2009... [3] http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/643 http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/643 [4] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1999824/whats-the-shortest-pair-of-strings-that-causes-an-md5-collision http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1999824/whats-the-shortes... [5] http://code.google.com/p/hashclash/ http://code.google.com/p/hashclash/ [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sha3 [7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Encryption_Standard [8] http://www.cwi.nl/news/2012/cwi-cryptanalist-discovers-new-cryptographic-attack-variant-in-flame-spy-malware http://www.cwi.nl/news/2012/cwi-cryptanalist-discovers-new-c... [9] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4080240 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4080240

dfc 14y ago
Did you read the article or the mailing list threads? This attack is hardly old news.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
doe88 14y ago
That depends when this attack was first conducted and when this variant of the cryptanalysis on MD5 was made as Marc Stevens sums up [1]: More interestingly, the results have shown that not our published chosen-prefix collision attack was used, but an entirely new and unknown variant. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that the particular chosen-prefix collision attack variant underlying Flame had already been in development before June 2009. This has led to our conclusion that the design of Flame is partly based on world-class cryptanalysis. [1] http://www.cwi.nl/news/2012/cwi-cryptanalist-discovers-new-cryptographic-attack-variant-in-flame-spy-malware http://www.cwi.nl/news/2012/cwi-cryptanalist-discovers-new-c...

dfc 14y ago

Did you read the article or the mailing list threads? This attack is hardly old news.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

doe88 14y ago

That depends when this attack was first conducted and when this variant of the cryptanalysis on MD5 was made as Marc Stevens sums up [1]: More interestingly, the results have shown that not our published chosen-prefix collision attack was used, but an entirely new and unknown variant. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that the particular chosen-prefix collision attack variant underlying Flame had already been in development before June 2009. This has led to our conclusion that the design of Flame is partly based on world-class cryptanalysis. [1] http://www.cwi.nl/news/2012/cwi-cryptanalist-discovers-new-cryptographic-attack-variant-in-flame-spy-malware http://www.cwi.nl/news/2012/cwi-cryptanalist-discovers-new-c...