Return-Path: X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 124E21B2951 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:23:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8bMwlnMNPkXT for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:23:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from che.mayfirst.org (che.mayfirst.org [209.234.253.108]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6A71B2955 for ; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 10:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.70.10.93] (unknown [38.109.115.130]) by che.mayfirst.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36D6EF984; Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:23:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <53DA7B79.70709@fifthhorseman.net> Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 13:23:05 -0400 From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:30.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/30.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tony Arcieri , Michael Hamburg References: <20140729205846.6639765.71649.17355@certicom.com> <947D45A1-AF36-470B-8D50-7600FEF7FB30@shiftleft.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xoIbFDcEhowCJXeQVSB3BqUSTLT9UUd8b" Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/oEaNHTrpXz72Q_tEksNK-13u29s Cc: Dan Brown , IRTF Crypto Forum Research Group Subject: Re: [Cfrg] A downside of deterministic DL signatures? X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 17:23:39 -0000 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --xoIbFDcEhowCJXeQVSB3BqUSTLT9UUd8b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07/31/2014 01:08 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:40 AM, Michael Hamburg > wrote: >=20 >> Indeed. But collision attacks have also broken signature schemes *in >> practice*, for example the Flame malware. >> >=20 > Are there any other examples of collision attacks in the wild? Also not= e > this attack required a nationstate-level effort. sure: http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/ and other instances from the same group, including the cheeky: http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/Nostradamus/ neither of these required nationstate-level effort, and they date back to 2008. --dkg --xoIbFDcEhowCJXeQVSB3BqUSTLT9UUd8b Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJT2nt5XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXRFQjk2OTEyODdBN0FEREUzNzU3RDkxMUVB NTI0MDFCMTFCRkRGQTVDAAoJEKUkAbEb/fpcLBwQAK3Mlml/okGgSsSyg9K5B7Bl qYK6752Pp8ONABSjgaWofFeMip4QyqS5FL1mABXpTFTYV4YjOzDotBXPtN0zRytw wAnWTs7xGTtS8ODEvDRIKZYse655hVPTOkCfZbZzstQ/iLyYUdbsUXPDuWyTQdib gWsUJCm2c0J4CbqGg7eMu49eRJQXXp/76Cy71Kn9SD3p0v99ka9GxGdB7YtvWTWr MXGx4F+wnnrfzDJoN2/30MSTHTCzRd6yzKVkglvNM40o5TiC/dGG17B80dJzoZ5s T6ECeXFcwZdIQVu/hB1KAQsY4/I0uFep3/RuiQfXzRiJcYDQXl7t93/dFlSga+Ru 3onV2b6wegt/I4Ke6On+8Vm1IICVpKJV98qTzMsU2Ub4FUOb4+ZmcGsFkesHzsT5 zIDY+w62jtXAlllGE5Ixas+w86LkZ4D45ZjtfRGT0vKIlP0Y0Nf23jlAGXDGPCc4 Cz7Jyn2x1f5cvxzbkjEf9tYJiKXeFahw3kur8FD+OLjdHeu5mWnKF2NooEFU3oFH W9l0Gz/e7qBBYOhhwSFnEamUYaulQXnBYaJ4zixvtWQqVryB3LXinRl4LLx0ach+ MnFoQSV+xA4SrRvRGzh1Ramii51PpyNltz1RaAJ5vFWx96qENPl4jIiZ55le1nje Hk2yiJvClnpUF4eVbyCZ =5RdW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xoIbFDcEhowCJXeQVSB3BqUSTLT9UUd8b--