Reminder that GitHub has blocked Git commit collisions since 2017, and as far as anybody is aware hasn't seen one in the wild. https://github.blog/2017-03-20-sha-1-collision-detection-on-...
Random collisions in 160-bit space are incredibly unlikely. This is talking about intentional collision, and means that it's entirely feasible for someone with significant compute power to create a git commit that has the exact same hash as another git commit. This could allow someone to silently modify a git commit history to e.g. inject malware or a known "bug" into a piece of software. The modified repository woul…
SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)
11–20 of 210 posts
Re: SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)
#12Reminder that GitHub has blocked Git commit collisions since 2017, and as far as anybody is aware hasn't seen one in the wild. https://github.blog/2017-03-20-sha-1-collision-detection-on-...
Random collisions in 160-bit space are incredibly unlikely. This is talking about intentional collision, and means that it's entirely feasible for someone with significant compute power to create a git commit that has the exact same hash as another git commit. This could allow someone to silently modify a git commit history to e.g. inject malware or a known "bug" into a piece of software. The modified repository woul…
Re: SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)
#13> The technique that the researchers developed is quite complex and required two months of computations on 900 individual GPUs.
Re: SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)
#14> The technique that the researchers developed is quite complex and required two months of computations on 900 individual GPUs.
I only half joke when I ask, when you break a cryptogrpahic hash, does it mean that now it's just a really amazing compression algorithm, but with a very heavy compute requirement? The non-joking half is speculating what data compression in a post-quantum compute world looks like.
You can't decompress 32 bytes into 1GB because you don't know which of the 1GB-sized answers is the intended one.
Re: SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)
#15Reminder that GitHub has blocked Git commit collisions since 2017, and as far as anybody is aware hasn't seen one in the wild. https://github.blog/2017-03-20-sha-1-collision-detection-on-...
Random collisions in 160-bit space are incredibly unlikely. This is talking about intentional collision, and means that it's entirely feasible for someone with significant compute power to create a git commit that has the exact same hash as another git commit. This could allow someone to silently modify a git commit history to e.g. inject malware or a known "bug" into a piece of software. The modified repository woul…
Re: SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)
#16> The technique that the researchers developed is quite complex and required two months of computations on 900 individual GPUs.
I only half joke when I ask, when you break a cryptogrpahic hash, does it mean that now it's just a really amazing compression algorithm, but with a very heavy compute requirement? The non-joking half is speculating what data compression in a post-quantum compute world looks like.
For example, SHA-1 outputs a 160 bit hash, which means some input of 161 or more bits will definitely have the same hash as some other input of the same size. Even smaller inputs may have collisions too.
Re: SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)
#17> The technique that the researchers developed is quite complex and required two months of computations on 900 individual GPUs.
I only half joke when I ask, when you break a cryptogrpahic hash, does it mean that now it's just a really amazing compression algorithm, but with a very heavy compute requirement? The non-joking half is speculating what data compression in a post-quantum compute world looks like.
Re: SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)
#18> The technique that the researchers developed is quite complex and required two months of computations on 900 individual GPUs.
I only half joke when I ask, when you break a cryptogrpahic hash, does it mean that now it's just a really amazing compression algorithm, but with a very heavy compute requirement? The non-joking half is speculating what data compression in a post-quantum compute world looks like.
Hashes are very bad compressors. :)
Re: SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
I only half joke when I ask, when you break a cryptogrpahic hash, does it mean that now it's just a really amazing compression algorithm, but with a very heavy compute requirement? The non-joking half is speculating what data compression in a post-quantum compute world looks like.
No, because reversing the hash has infinite possible answers (well, "very many" for bounded input size). You can't decompress 32 bytes into 1GB because you don't know which of the 1GB-sized answers is the intended one.
Re: SHA-1 'fully and practically broken' by new collision (2020)
#20> The technique that the researchers developed is quite complex and required two months of computations on 900 individual GPUs.
I only half joke when I ask, when you break a cryptogrpahic hash, does it mean that now it's just a really amazing compression algorithm, but with a very heavy compute requirement? The non-joking half is speculating what data compression in a post-quantum compute world looks like.
Whereas all it means is that it's become feasible for someone to produce a fake document with the same hash as the genuine one; the attack depends on the existence of collisions, which depend on the hash being one-way, such that an infinite set of documents could be "recovered" from the hash.
Most of the documents you could "decompress" from a hash are going to be gibberish, but some of them are going to be legit. If a hash is "broken", that means it's somehow unduly easy to search that ocean of gibberish collisions to find a chosen text which goes to a certain desired hash.
Nothing quantum can redefine a function that isn't one-to-one and onto into one that is. The hashing function remains ever the mathematical object that it is: a one-way function. But calculations of or searches through that function can be faster.
In a post-quantum world, pre-quantum crypto and hashing could well turn out to be "for shit" as such, but not due to ruses like suddenly reversing irreversible functions.
Not saying that the joke isn't funny! We can imagine some hard-core computer science or math sitcom in which the fall characters say things like this, and only the very narrow target audience gets it.