3 ms·
As I stated. The computation power needed to break SHA-1 is higher then attacking RSA. So if you are financially motivated attacking RSA has a higher ROI.
by valarauca1 12y ago
As I stated.
The computation power needed to break SHA-1 is higher then attacking RSA. So if you are financially motivated attacking RSA has a higher ROI.
- squeaky-clean 12y agoWhile true, "There's something more profitable to attack at the moment" seems like a lousy way to handle security.
- valarauca1 12y agoI never said moving away from SHA-1 was irrelevant. I was simply stating that they were overestimating how common the FLAME attack could be pulled off. Flame like Stuxnet are state of the art. Highly funded state of the art. A lot of security researchers look at these things and simply say, "Are you shitting me?!" Call me optimistic but I highly doubt we'll be uncovering a new stuxnet every single year.
- pbsd 12y ago> The computation power needed to break SHA-1 is higher then attacking RSA[-1024]. You better back that assertion with something. Even in the worst possible case (for SHA-1), it seems to me that SHA-1 is cheaper to collide than it is to factor a general 1024-bit integer.