Justus Winter writes:
> I think hashing should be fallible. If a collision attack is detected,
> no digest should be produced, because the digest has none of the
> properties that we usually associate with a hash digest.
I disagree; a hash function is a well defined function (in the
On Tue, 03 Nov 2020 10:24:17 +0100,
Justus Winter wrote:
> "Neal H. Walfield" writes:
>
> > I'm not that familiar with Nettle's API, so I don't know if the
> > following is sufficiently idiomatic.
> >
> > That said, we could do the following: we could add a flag to the sha1
> > context to
"Neal H. Walfield" writes:
> I'm not that familiar with Nettle's API, so I don't know if the
> following is sufficiently idiomatic.
>
> That said, we could do the following: we could add a flag to the sha1
> context to indicate to the update function that it should try to
> detect collision
Hi Niels,
On Mon, 02 Nov 2020 18:49:39 +0100,
Niels Möller wrote:
>
> "Neal H. Walfield" writes:
>
> > So we could add:
> >
> > void sha1_collision_detection_init(...);
> > void sha1_collision_detection_update (struct sha1_ctx *ctx, size_t
> > length, const uint8_t *data)
> >
"Neal H. Walfield" writes:
> So we could add:
>
> void sha1_collision_detection_init(...);
> void sha1_collision_detection_update (struct sha1_ctx *ctx, size_t length,
> const uint8_t *data)
> error_code_t sha1_collision_detection_digest (struct sha1_ctx *ctx, size_t
> length, uint8_t
On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 14:40 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> Hi Simo,
>
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2020 14:31:34 +0100,
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 12:53 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > This change would have to be conditional as it will break compatibility
> > for the very use case
Hi Simo,
On Mon, 02 Nov 2020 14:31:34 +0100,
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 12:53 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> This change would have to be conditional as it will break compatibility
> for the very use case you mention, data at rest saved moons ago.
I see two ways forward.
If I
On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 12:53 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's well known that SHA-1 is broken. I don't want to save it. But,
> particularly when dealing with data at rest, there are cases where one
> has to use SHA-1. It would be nice if Nettle integrated SHA-1
> collision
Hi,
It's well known that SHA-1 is broken. I don't want to save it. But,
particularly when dealing with data at rest, there are cases where one
has to use SHA-1. It would be nice if Nettle integrated SHA-1
collision detection to make that a tiny bit safer:
