Re: New results against SHA-1

[Werner Koch <wk@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon,  4 May 2009 17:32, dkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx said:
> current fingerprint would be re-written as:
>
>  SHA1-0EE5BE979282D80B9F7540F1CCD2ED94D21739E9

Using a number (2) and, say, a dot as a prefix would be a better choice.
We use algorithnm numbers anyway and OpenPGP users are used tp spell a
large row of hex digits; we would only confuse them with an S and an H..

>  e) allow injection of arbitrary key material at the head of signatures
> to allow signers to to avoid a chosen-prefix attack?  This would make it
> significantly more difficult to predict the hash that someone will sign,

and gives more bandwidth for a subliminal channel...

>  f) explicit introduction of new hashes/ciphers/asymmetric algorithms?

We should defer such a discussion until there are semi final results
from the SHA-3 contest.

> I've probably missed something.  What else should be addressed?  What
> steps are necessary to get the WG back in order again?  Or is that not

Right, we should re-establish the WG to no rely on I-Ds by individuals.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz.