Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: Determining the encryption used |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 13 May 2006 13:01:47 -0400 |
Hello Phoebe,
I'm don't know a lot about these matters, but I was under the impression that if a password verification system is checking passwords against a hash table, all you needed was a collision (as this would hash to the correct value in the table and the comparison of the two would return true).
Yes, any hash function will be subject to collisions on arbitrary inputs. However, the vulnerabilities found in MD5 and SHA1 don't involve taking an existing hash and generating collisions against it. They involve generating two seperate hashes which have a collision. This seems like a very minor distinction at first, but it is actually a very different type of attack. Normally it should be very difficult to generate any collision at all against secure hash functions, let alone using useful inputs.
Is this really naive?
Somewhat. A summary of the three desired properties of a hash function can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function#Cryptographic_properties The collision attacks found can break the security of cryptographic signatures, since attackers potentially have control over multiple hash inputs. Where an attacker has control over only one input, (but knows the value of it), collisions can only be generated by breaking the second preimage property. Reversing a hash to an original unknown value, requires a (first) preimage attack. Collision attacks are much easier to conduct due to the birthday "paradox". Just because this property of a hash has been broken, doesn't mean the others have. HTH, tim ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This List Sponsored by: Cenzic Concerned about Web Application Security? Why not go with the #1 solution - Cenzic, the only one to win the Analyst's Choice Award from eWeek. As attacks through web applications continue to rise, you need to proactively protect your applications from hackers. Cenzic has the most comprehensive solutions to meet your application security penetration testing and vulnerability management needs. You have an option to go with a managed service (Cenzic ClickToSecure) or an enterprise software (Cenzic Hailstorm). Download FREE whitepaper on how a managed service can help you: http://www.cenzic.com/news_events/wpappsec.php And, now for a limited time we can do a FREE audit for you to confirm your results from other product. Contact us at request@cenzic.com for details. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Determining the encryption used, Peter Kosinar |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | rules of engagement scope, James Kelly |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Determining the encryption used, Peter Kosinar |
| Next by Thread: | RE: Determining the encryption used, Sahir Hidayatullah |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |