Re:Announcing the first SHA-1 collision
by CGamesPlay on Thursday February 23, 2017 @04:47PM
(#13718127)
Great analysis. So why did Google choose to use PDFs instead of JPGs directly?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Announcing the first SHA-1 collision
by nneonneo on Thursday February 23, 2017 @06:43PM
(#13719072)
The notion of "document security" is a common desire in business and legal contexts. PDFs are a standard representation of documents, whereas JPGs are less common (TIFF might count since it's a somewhat common scanned document format, but I digress).
Subverting the most popular document format, one which even provides built-in support for digital signatures is probably much more interesting than subverting the JPG format.
Open challenge: build two signed PDFs with identical signatures and different contents - it's not necessarily hard, and it would definitely drive the point home.
I wonder if this is the 'standard' thing to do when you have a broken hash function. I took a introductory course in computer security a year ago and we had to create MD5 hash-colliding documents for homework[0].
[0] https://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs461/sp2015/static/proj1.... (see part 4)
Re:Announcing the first SHA-1 collision
by ritmatter on Saturday February 25, 2017 @11:46PM
(#13735722)
I'm interested in taking a look at this assignment for my own learning, but it looks like there are a bunch of files you need. It would be cool if you put them in a git repo!
Re:Announcing the first SHA-1 collision
by manacit on Thursday February 23, 2017 @05:20PM
(#13718370)
Because many automated systems/image hosting website (imgur, etc) will process JPEGs to optimize them, which I assume would no longer cause there to be a collision.
On the other hand, PDFs are almost universally sent as-is, increasing the risk of being able to 'fool' someone.