[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnumed-devel] GNotary

From: Tim Churches
Subject: Re: [Gnumed-devel] GNotary
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 04:53:42 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

Sebastian Hilbert wrote:
> On Tuesday 30 August 2005 02:23, Syan Tan wrote:
>>the problem with the networked gnotary idea seemed to be uptake : would
>>people who ran gnotaries always be independent ?
>>Hashing the logs and publishing it in a paper seems to be a good idea. At a 
> document level, if the document was a program and the program was 
> obfuscatable, and the hash was md5 , then you could do the

Yes, but the Daum and Lucks attack (2 documents-in-one), although
clever, is trivial to discover and now that it is described, every
document whcih is a programme (i.e Postscript, PDF, MS-Word, OpenOffice
doc etc etc - needs to be inspected using a byte editor to check for the
attack, and not just printed out.

> The hash is not md5 nut sha256 and ripmd160. I hope this makes a differences. 
> If not. Tough luck. 

SHA256 is thought to be quite safe against both colision and pre-image
attacks for now.

Tim C

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]