Comments on: MD5 considered primeval http://rdist.root.org/2008/09/15/md5-considered-primeval/ Embedded security, crypto, software protection Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:29:16 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Nate Lawson http://rdist.root.org/2008/09/15/md5-considered-primeval/#comment-4823 Nate Lawson Tue, 04 Nov 2008 18:26:19 +0000 http://rdist.wordpress.com/?p=201#comment-4823 ivan, while I do think you guys are the best hackers in the world, I agree with you that using MD5 is indefensible. Thanks for the nice links. ivan, while I do think you guys are the best hackers in the world, I agree with you that using MD5 is indefensible. Thanks for the nice links.

]]> By: ivan http://rdist.root.org/2008/09/15/md5-considered-primeval/#comment-4818 ivan Thu, 30 Oct 2008 15:24:28 +0000 http://rdist.wordpress.com/?p=201#comment-4818 The likelihood too low?? http://www.coresecurity.com/files/attachments/Richarte_MD5-Harmful-today.pdf Two executable files with the same MD5 hash, crc-32, checksum-32 and checksum-16: http://www1.corest.com/corelabs/projects/research_topics/Richarte_md5-crc32-cksum16-cksum32.zip Two executable file with the same MD5 hash: http://www1.corest.com/corelabs/projects/research_topics/Richarte_md5-2-collisions.zip Eight files with the same MD5 hash: http://www1.corest.com/corelabs/projects/research_topics/Richarte_md5-8-collisions.zip Turns out that I work with the best hacker in the world!@#$ The likelihood too low??

http://www.coresecurity.com/files/attachments/Richarte_MD5-Harmful-today.pdf

Two executable files with the same MD5 hash, crc-32, checksum-32 and checksum-16:
http://www1.corest.com/corelabs/projects/research_topics/Richarte_md5-crc32-cksum16-cksum32.zip

Two executable file with the same MD5 hash:
http://www1.corest.com/corelabs/projects/research_topics/Richarte_md5-2-collisions.zip

Eight files with the same MD5 hash:
http://www1.corest.com/corelabs/projects/research_topics/Richarte_md5-8-collisions.zip

Turns out that I work with the best hacker in the world!@#$

]]> By: Nate Lawson http://rdist.root.org/2008/09/15/md5-considered-primeval/#comment-4791 Nate Lawson Tue, 16 Sep 2008 18:12:05 +0000 http://rdist.wordpress.com/?p=201#comment-4791 Yes, no one has published second pre-image attacks on MD5 yet. However, you can't seriously be defending its continued use in any modern system. As for MD5's use with forensics, all criminals can place the known MD5 colliding "magic string" in their data. Then, if caught, produce a totally innocent set of data that matches the same MD5 sums Cellebrite got. Now there's reasonable doubt that the evidence could have been tampered with. MD5 should be retired quickly, even for uses where second pre-image resistance is all that's needed. Cellebrite's competitors got the message back in 2003. Why are they trying to ignore this? Yes, no one has published second pre-image attacks on MD5 yet. However, you can’t seriously be defending its continued use in any modern system.

As for MD5’s use with forensics, all criminals can place the known MD5 colliding “magic string” in their data. Then, if caught, produce a totally innocent set of data that matches the same MD5 sums Cellebrite got. Now there’s reasonable doubt that the evidence could have been tampered with.

MD5 should be retired quickly, even for uses where second pre-image resistance is all that’s needed. Cellebrite’s competitors got the message back in 2003. Why are they trying to ignore this?

]]> By: Gavin http://rdist.root.org/2008/09/15/md5-considered-primeval/#comment-4790 Gavin Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:43:57 +0000 http://rdist.wordpress.com/?p=201#comment-4790 From the site linked to "It is important to note that the hash value shared by the two different files is a result of the collision construction process. We cannot target a given hash value, and produce a (meaningful) input bit string hashing to that given value." It is not unreasonable to use MD5sums for tamper detection unless someone is able to generated targeted hashs. From the site linked to
“It is important to note that the hash value shared by the two different files is a result of the collision construction process. We cannot target a given hash value, and produce a (meaningful) input bit string hashing to that given value.”

It is not unreasonable to use MD5sums for tamper detection unless someone is able to generated targeted hashs.

]]>