Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sat, 25 Sep 2004 10:54:44 -0400 | | From | Jean-Luc Cooke <> | | Subject | Re: [PROPOSAL/PATCH] Fortuna PRNG in /dev/random |
| |
On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 09:42:30PM -0000, linux@horizon.com wrote: > > What if I told the SHA-1 implementation in random.c right now is weaker > > than those hashs in terms of collisions? The lack of padding in the > > implementation is the cause. HASH("a\0\0\0\0...") == HASH("a") There > > are billions of other examples. > EXCUSE me?
...
> I could argue it's a design flaw to *include* the padding.
I was trying to point out a flaw in Ted's logic. He said "we've recently discoverd these hashs are weak because we found collsions. Current /dev/random doesn't care about this."
I certainly wasn't saying padding was a requirment. But I was trying to point out that the SHA-1 implementaion crrently in /dev/random by design is collision vulnerable. Collision resistance isn't a requirment for it's purposes obviously.
Guess my pointing this out is a lost cause.
JLC
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |