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: Combining Hashes |
|---|---|
| Date: | Sat, 19 Feb 2005 21:40:55 -0700 (MST) |
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Felix Cuello wrote:
SHA and MD5 are weak algorithms [and we do not use it since now]. But what about old digitally signed documents? There is a protocol to re-sign our old digitally signed documents [hashed using SHA or MD5]?
Not really. One solution if someone has a large store of digitally signed documents where the original signer is not available is to rehash them with a better algorithm and use that hash to create a digital timestamp (of document + original signature) that the document existed before this was easily exploitable. Then the original signature is still preserved and can be verified, knowing that if there is a new timestamp of whatever date your risk assessment decides is too late to be secure any longer, that then the document was not compromised by these weaknesses. That assumes of course that these are not trivial weaknesses to exploit. I still advocate using multiple hashes and public key algorithms to sign documents - for instance, 5 years ago I would have said to use RSA + MD5 and DSA + SHA1 to create two separate digital signatures for each document. I would have said the security was mathematically as strong as the strongest individual signature. I would not say that "Well, SHA1 is 168 bits and MD5 is 128 bits, so the security is 168+128 bits." I would have said, "I don't want to bet everything on the fact that there isn't someone that finds a novel way to crack one of these algorithms due to a weakness no one previously knew about." None of the mathematical proofs of strength can account for the "lucky break", but I can account for it somewhat with risk management and multiple algorithms. -- Joel
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | RE: Windows Firewall Has A Backdoor, Thor Larholm |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | The WebConnect 6.4.4 and 6.5 contains several vulnerabilities, CIRT Advisory |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Combining Hashes, Felix Cuello |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Combining Hashes, exon |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |