I think if you could find a real life collision - you might be able to
get some sort of award. Good luck. :-)
On 06/30/2010 05:57 AM, michael.felke_at_evonik.com wrote:
> O.K., it seems there is really a need to discuss the problem of
> SHA-1 collisions more deeply.
> But one is missing!
> 4. The set of one kind of data and that of another kind are overlapping
> very infrequent, if at all. They could be seen as highly discriminable
> and separated parts of the sample set of all possible data.
> So SHA-1 hashes will wildly spread on the first set, doing the best
> of its job, and also, but independently, spread on the other set as
> wide as it?s expected to do.
> What is the result, when two or more sets of hash values, each widely
> spread of the same value range, are used together in one fetch index?
> Perhaps, some can see a danger now, too.
> I? am working on a practical demonstration, which everybody could
> reproduce with his or her spreadsheet program.
> But please be patient, I have other things to do, as well.
> P.S. Thanks for the warning; we are not going to use 1.7.
> At the Moment we are not using 1.6 either,
> because of the SHA-1 rep-share cache.
Received on 2010-06-30 20:41:31 CEST