3 ms·
SHA-1 should be assumed to be broken in any case. The Flame malware was distributed using a fake certificate that was generated via a brand new (publicly unkno
by ig1 13y ago
SHA-1 should be assumed to be broken in any case.
The Flame malware was distributed using a fake certificate that was generated via a brand new (publicly unknown) chosen prefix collision technique against SHA-1.
- tptacek 13y agoFlame used an MD5 collision.
- ig1 13y agoThe Microsoft certificate revokation list for Flame: Microsoft is providing an update for all supported releases of Microsoft Windows. The update revokes the trust of the following intermediate CA certificates: Microsoft Enforced Licensing Intermediate PCA (2 certificates) Microsoft Enforced Licensing Registration Authority CA (SHA1) (from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/advisory/2718704 http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/advisory/2718704) Two of the certs were MD5, the third was SHA1.
- tptacek 13y agoThe hash collision exploited by Flame was in MD5, not SHA1.