Re: hash functions Re: OVC - I "really" need your help with "public disclosure" legislative suggestion

From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall <joehall_at_gmail_dot_com>
Date: Mon Nov 27 2006 - 16:05:07 CST

On 11/27/06, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
> Edmund R. Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Crypographic hash functions are said to be a pretty effective way to
> > detect tampering with program code.
>
> There are a few quite innocent things that occur during routine transfers
> that work havoc on checksums - line ending sequences, tab expansions, and
> end-of-line whitespace pruning.
>
> These can be handled (generally by carrying the code around in a bottle of
> some kind - tar, zip, etc) once one is aware of the issue.

Also I was unaware that you could design collisions with MD5 or
versions of SHA hashing. Charlie, could you point to that literature
for me? It can't be as trivial as designing CRC collisions. best,
-Joe

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
PhD Student, UC Berkeley, School of Information
<http://josephhall.org/>
_______________________________________________
OVC-discuss mailing list
OVC-discuss@listman.sonic.net
http://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/ovc-discuss
==================================================================
= The content of this message, with the exception of any external 
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain    
==================================================================
Received on Thu Nov 30 23:17:13 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 23:17:19 CST