Re: The Pointlessness of the MD5 'attacks'

["C. Scott Ananian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, Tim Dierks wrote:

> Here's an example, although I think it's a stupid one, and agree with
[...]
> I send you a binary (say, a library for doing AES encryption) which
> you test exhaustively using black-box testing.

The black-box testing would obviously be the mistake.  How can you tell 
that the library doesn't start sending plain-text for messages which start 
with a particular magic bytes, or some other evilness?  You can't hope to 
test *all* messages.  The word 'exhaustively' is where your example goes 
wrong.

I'll play Ben's part and claim that if you can provide a library which 
will *only* be checked using black-box testing, it's much easier to skip 
the whole MD5 aspect and have it use a covert channel (leak key bits in 
padding or some such) or transmit plain-text after the first 100M of data 
encrypted or some such.  There are lots of easy ways to get your 
maliciousness past a black-box test.  The use of MD5 (a relatively 
*hard* way to be malicious) doesn't appreciably change the threat.
 --scott

[it should be noted that any security-conscious tester will/ought to 
screen your binary for all of the *published* MD5 collisions, so 
you'll have to generate one yourself if you want to get away with this.]

HTLINGUAL Hager Kennedy AEFOXTROT global action network assassinate
   Register to vote!  http://www.yourvotematters.org/VerifiedVoting
                         ( http://cscott.net/ )

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]