On Tuesday, July 19, 2016 at 1:05:13 PM UTC-7, Andrew Whalley wrote: > Greetings, > > I have run the tool provided by dr.ir. Marc Stevens [1] on the > tbsCertificates provided by Symantec [2] > > And see no evidence of collisions: > > $ ./sha1dcsum_partialcoll *.tbs > 6ead26663275c388662dfdbc23ff0a76cdcf74dc ssl1.tsysacquiring.net.1.tbs > 3365793f36c197047b2f595c0f85c67b807c765f ssl1.tsysacquiring.net.2.tbs > 3c47155a5d9880a6893925e1c4479f914b3b9ffe ssl1.vitalps.net.1.tbs > d130d1a8c51bce7323ba984b2f6298d0750405f4 ssl1.vitalps.net.2.tbs > c9eb52c30bfaaaba5a1e060723e3c9e4b25f7b1e ssl2.vitalps.net.1.tbs > 3698794f1cabc3036380cc2adbc2805393098c45 ssl2.vitalps.net.2.tbs > e7233e69a89b6b7568f790482b73f635d2464a95 ssl3.vitalps.net.1.tbs > 9c7bbae0fc9b08c5304908bd956c5b4b37c4e1c7 ssl3.vitalps.net.2.tbs > > I'd be interested to know if anybody else replicates this. > > Marc - I believe that the tool as posted doesn't give assurance to the full > 80 bit security level. If that's true do you have an estimate of the > security level it does provide? > > Many thanks, > > Andrew > > [1] see https://marc-stevens.nl/research/ & > https://svn.marc-stevens.nl/collisiondetection/ > [2] https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-July/007999.html
Marc, it's been pointed out in the CABF list [1] that the analysis you did on the second set of seven was on the original certificates, on which we based new TBSCertificates. Your analysis wasn't done on the new TBSCertificates. The new TBSCertificates differ from the original certificates only in serial number and date fields. [1] https://cabforum.org/pipermail/public/2016-July/008147.html _______________________________________________ dev-security-policy mailing list dev-security-policy@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-security-policy
