Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Blue Boar (BlueBoarthievco.com)
Date: Wed Mar 21 2007 - 16:24:03 CDT
My understanding that the kind of birthday attack under discussion would
start at 80-bits if SHA-1 (at 160-bits) were 100% secure. The attack
under discussion is reported to reduce that to the neighborhood of
I am not a mathematician though, so I would be perfectly willing to
believe I was wrong about that.
> Dear Blue Boar,
> It's not clear if this 'crack' cam be applied to birthday attack. My
> in-mind computations were: because birthday attack requires ~square root
> of N computations where bruteforce requires ~N/2, impact of 2000 times N
> decrease for birthday is ~64 times faster. 64 = 2^6. Because complexity
> is ~square root of possible combinations, it's equivalent of traditional
> birthday attack, with 160-(2*6)=148 bits hash (150 is my mistake in
> in-mind computations).
> Of cause, since I completely wasted 10 years after obtaining Master
> degree in Mathematics and 3 years after loosing last pencil I may be
> completely wrong in computations :)
> --Wednesday, March 21, 2007, 9:48:55 PM, you wrote to 3APA3ASECURITY.NNOV.RU:
> BB> 3APA3A wrote:
>>> I know meaning of 'hash function' term, I wrote few articles on
>>> challenge-response authentication and I did few hash functions
>>> implementations for hashtables and authentication in FreeRADIUS and
>>> 3proxy. Can I claim my right for sarcasm after calling ability to
>>> bruteforce 160-bit hash 2000 times faster 'a crack'?
> BB> Fair enough, your sarcasm tags didn't render properly in my MUA. I was
> BB> fooled by you stating that the birthday attack would be 150 bits.
> BB> BB
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/