Re: SHA1 broken?
On 1108637369 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch Dave Howe wrote: Its fine assuming that moore's law will hold forever, but without that you can't really extrapolate a future tech curve. with *todays* technology, you would have to spend an appreciable fraction of the national budget to get a one-per-year break, not that anything that has been hashed with sha-1 can be considered breakable (but that would allow you to (for example) forge a digital signature given an example) I think that it is generally prudent to make the most ``conservative'' assumption with regards to Moore's Law in any given context. I.e. bet that it will continue when determining how easy your security is to brute force, and assume that it will not when writing code. -- Roland Dowdeswell http://www.Imrryr.ORG/~elric/
Re: SHA1 broken?
On 1108637369 seconds since the Beginning of the UNIX epoch Dave Howe wrote: Its fine assuming that moore's law will hold forever, but without that you can't really extrapolate a future tech curve. with *todays* technology, you would have to spend an appreciable fraction of the national budget to get a one-per-year break, not that anything that has been hashed with sha-1 can be considered breakable (but that would allow you to (for example) forge a digital signature given an example) I think that it is generally prudent to make the most ``conservative'' assumption with regards to Moore's Law in any given context. I.e. bet that it will continue when determining how easy your security is to brute force, and assume that it will not when writing code. -- Roland Dowdeswell http://www.Imrryr.ORG/~elric/
