News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Single-block collision for MD5 by 0x0 on Sunday January 29, 2012 @03:47PM (#3526204)
Wow, so only two bits flipped? That's pretty bad even if you're using md5 just as a simple checksum protection against transmission errors.
Re:Single-block collision for MD5 by tankenmate on Sunday January 29, 2012 @04:43PM (#3526371)
If you are trying to protect against transmission errors then md5 is a poor choice; it is expensive, it gives no guarantees as to how accurate it is, and has no ability to correct errors. If you want to protect against transmission errors, and possibly correct them, use CRCs; apart from the fact that they provide all three of the above, that's what they were designed for.
Re:Single-block collision for MD5 by tptacek on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:17PM (#3526454)
Very well optimized CRC is significantly faster than MD5, but note that MD5 is very fast.

MD5 is also a poorer choice for UUID-type applications than the SHA-2 functions, which offer more flexibility in output size at not much cost in performance.

Re:Single-block collision for MD5 by rphlx on Sunday January 29, 2012 @04:17PM (#3526292)
Not really. This collision required specific intent, and a great deal of compute power, to find.

md5 is still adequate for accidental/random error detection because the universe doesn't (usually) spend many hundreds of hours on hundreds of GPUs to try to corrupt your data without you noticing :)

Re:Single-block collision for MD5 by snewman on Sunday January 29, 2012 @06:10PM (#3526622)
Though sometimes it can seem that way. :)
Re:Single-block collision for MD5 by 0x0 on Sunday January 29, 2012 @06:27PM (#3526668)
Fair point. I just kind of assumed that any collision would require quite a lot of flipped bits, because usually just one flipped bit is enough to cause an "avalanche" of changes in the hash sum.

Would it be possible to find a collision where only one bit is flipped in the input?