Hi all, Another indicator that I believe should be taken care into consideration, is the fact that Microsoft is using SHA256 or better in all new application for a while now. They do have a post [1] in their Secure Development Lifecycle blog stating their stance regarding cryptography and banning certain algorithms and the reasoning behind some decisions (albeit a watered-down one). Regardless of one's views for Microsoft (I personally do not use any of their products), I believe that one should see what others in the are doing
[1] http://blogs.msdn.com/b/sdl/archive/2009/07/16/banned-crypto-and-the-sdl.aspx On 01/24/2011 01:18 PM, René Mayrhofer wrote: > Am Montag, 24. Januar 2011, um 11:29:25 schrieb AK: >> While the attack sequence presented is valid, in practice, given that >> there are a lot of "Debian based" distributions out there, wouldn't this >> be caught somewhere down the line? > I wouldn't count on it, unfortunately - I have been working on a > security/firewall distribution based on Debian (Gibraltar firewall) since ca. > 2000, and we just don't have the manpower to audit upstream Debian packages. > We certainly didn't catch the openssl bug, and I don't think any of the other > Debian-derived distributions did. It would be exceedingly easy to hide a > small, known-to-be-colliding binary block in most of the Debian packages and > call it with an obscure overflow-like bug in one of the binaries. > > Therefore, I strongly suggest to move away from all uses of MD5 and use SHA-2 > (>=256) instead (SHA1 already makes the crypto community nervous, and we will > need to wait for SHA-3 to arrive at something that will hopefully hold for > >10 years...). > > best regards, > Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
