Re: TFM needed ro R

Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com> Mon, 16 September 1996 13:03 UTC

Date: Fri, 13 Sep 1996 16:09:30 -0700
From: Ned Freed <Ned.Freed@innosoft.com>
Subject: Re: TFM needed ro R
To: David Rudder <drig@magicweb.com>
Cc: pem-dev@tis.com
Message-Id: <01I9FPRGR3US8Y5I6P@INNOSOFT.COM>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: pem-dev-approval@neptune.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

> RIPEM and SSLeay seem to like MD5.  RIPEM uses MD2 for it's X.509
> certificates but MD5 for it's MIC-Info.  There are a bunch of MD5
> programs out there and a number written in Java.  Bruce Schneier says "I am
> wary of MD5" on pge 441 of Applied Cryptography.  He states before that
> that MD5 hasn't been provven insecure, but weaknesses have been found in
> the compression function.  If he is wary of this algorithm, then why is
> it so popular?  It's by far more prevelant than any other message digest
> I've seen.

It is worse than Schneier says -- there are newer results now. See the current
issue of RSA's CryptoBytes publication, Volume 2 Number 2, Summer 1996, for
details. Online copies are available in
http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/cryptobytes/.

The bottom line is that new application should no longer specify MD5 as a MIC.
And MD2 has been obsolete for some time. Use either SHA-1 or RIPEMD-160.
(I prefer the former.)

				Ned

TFM needed ro R David Rudder
Re: TFM needed ro R Ned Freed
Re: TFM needed ro R David Rudder
Re: TFM needed ro R Ned Freed