Re: Re: SHA1 hash safety

> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005, Brian O'Mahoney wrote:
> 
> >(1) I _have_ seen real-life collisions with MD5, in the context of
> >   Document management systems containing ~10^6 ms-WORD documents.
> 
> Dude!  You could have been *famous*!  Why the 
> aitch-ee-double-hockey-sticks didn't you publish this when you found it?
> Seriously, man.
> 
> Even given the known weaknesses in MD5, it would take much more than a 
> million documents to find MD5 collisions.  I can only conclude that the 
> hash was being used incorrectly; most likely truncated (my wild-ass guess 
> would be to 32 bits; a collision is likely with > 50% probability in a 
> million document store for a hash of less than 40 bits).
> 
> I know the current state of the art here.  It's going to take more than 
> just hearsay to convince me that full 128-bit MD5 collisions are likely. 
> I believe there are only two or so known to exist so far, and those were 
> found by a research team in China (which, yes, is fairly famous among the 
> cryptographic community now after publishing a paper consisting of little 
> apart from the two collisions themselves).