Re: SHA1 collisions found

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Anyway, I do have a suggestion for what the "object version" would be,
> but I'm not even going to mention it, because I want people to first
> think about the _concept_ and not the implementation.
>
> So: What do you think about the concept?

My reaction heavily depends on how that "object version" thing
works.  When I think I have "variant #1" of an object and say

  have 860cd699c285f02937a2edbdb78e8231292339a5#1

is there any guarantee that the other end has a (small) set of
different objects all sharing the same SHA-1 and it thinks it has
"variant #1" only when it has the same thing as I have (otherwise,
it may have "variant #2" that is an unrelated object but happens to
share the same hash)?  If so, I think I understand how things would
work within your "concept".  But otherwise, I am not really sure.

Would "object version" be like a truncated SHA-1 over the same data
but with different IV or something, i.e. something that guarantees
anybody would get the same result given the data to be hashed?





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]