RE: CBV

On Thu, 6 May 2004, Seth Goodman wrote:

> > From: Tony Finch
> > Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 7:28 AM
> >
> >
> 
> <...>
> 
> > Note that this simple form of hash is not as safe as you might expect. I'm
> > told by a security expert: "MD5 and SHA-1 output an intermediate value of
> > their computation from which a hash of the original string plus an
> > extension can be calculated. They can therefore not be used safely to
> > calculate a MAC as h(key, string), hence HMAC." So we should use RFC2104
> > hashes.
> 
> This is big news if it is true.  I always thought SHA-1 was suitable for
> HMAC's, but I would really like to know if it is not.  If what you are
> saying is true, isn't it a problem for the existing SRS address format as
> well?

I am not aware of this weakness. I have also done my research. I would
like to see a proper reference for it.

S.

-- 
Shevek                                    http://www.anarres.org/
I am the Borg.                         http://www.gothnicity.org/