Re: The Pointlessness of the MD5 'attacks'

[Ben Laurie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]

C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> 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.

Exactly so, thankyou.

Cheers,

Ben.

--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

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