Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions

Re:Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions by pvg on Saturday February 25, 2017 @10:11AM (#13731861)

Take a look at this

Specifically the section 'When collision attacks do matter' and the referenced write-up at

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions by bjornsing on Saturday February 25, 2017 @01:05PM (#13732844)

Interesting! :)

But isn't the real lesson here that X.509 is flawed?

Also, as the linked article says:

> The bottom line is that no widely-studied hash function has ever succumbed to a (second-)pre-image attack except for one.

And there are signatures that are provably resistant to collisions, shouldn't we move to such signatures?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions by pvg on Sunday February 26, 2017 @05:32AM (#13736588)

But isn't the real lesson here that X.509 is flawed

I don't think that's the case

And there are signatures that are provably resistant to collisions, shouldn't we move to such signatures?

It's just much simpler to move to a better hash function.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Lifetimes of cryptographic hash functions by bjornsing on Sunday February 26, 2017 @11:26AM (#13737999)

> It's just much simpler to move to a better hash function.

I don't see how one excludes the other. :P

[ Parent | on HN ]