"Anthony Nemmer" <intertwingled@qwest.net> writes:
Looks like a MD5 collision HAS been found:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000664.html
In case anyone is still wondering whether the collision in MD5 is
real, here are the two files.
$ cmp md5-1.bin md5-2.bin
md5-1.bin md5-2.bin differ: char 20, line 1
$ md5 md5-1.bin md5-2.bin
MD5 (md5-1.bin) = a4c0d35c95a63a805915367dcfe6b751
MD5 (md5-2.bin) = a4c0d35c95a63a805915367dcfe6b751
Note that as of now, there are no attacks that demonstrate that MD5 is
not preimage-resistant or 2nd-preimage-resistant. Perhaps more
importantly, it is also not clear (to me, at least), whether the
collisions that can be produced in MD5 are selective (i.e., the
attacker has some control over the colliding messages) or existential.
Collision resistance was a design goal for MD5. It does appear that
there exists a method for finding collisions in significantly less
than 2^64 operations. Thus, MD5 should not be used in any new
cryptographic systems that require collision resistance, preimage
resistance, or 2nd preimage resistance. Existing systems should be
evaluated individually. Some might require emergency patching.
--
Stanislav Shalunov http://www.internet2.edu/~shalunov/
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the
subject. -- Winston Churchill
begin 644 md5.tar.gz
M'XL(`*N%)4$"`\M-,=4UU$O*S&.@'3`P-#`P,S-C,#`P,#0W-031(`"C#8R`
M;$,#0T,#,U,S<Q.@N*$1D,N@8,!`!U!:7))8I*#`4)R1F%.:EU^&2UUY1FIJ
M#L.P`Q<-[S(=??;N2*;M++89ZW_&Z)_:VB[D5K?:@27";L?O^L[0M29LG%\V
M,S4_Z6A6+72,X@A4??'][,GY-V7W?FHPMXF>QBU[\8YC]9PG-Z9_B4H-O6I:
M/.OXA]=_>0PT/Z9=Y-S87ZI>7VEP->:UTHNUNRK/B,:\+3E]-_[HY=R-L[EN
MF)Y9_IAA%`PHR`7F?Z/!D__-C8Q,(/G?8#3_#U#^9\>9_S^BY/\B'/G?'6?^
M]T')_Q&C^7\4C()1,`I&P2@8!:-@%(R"43`*1L$H&`6C8!2,@E$P"D;!*!@%
:HV`4C()1,`I&P2@8!:.`<@``VKRAJP`H````
`
end
