| RE: Re: SHA-0 Broken | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
|
From: Pasi.Eronen (Pasi.Eronen |
|
| Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:23:07 -0400 (EDT) | |
Thomas Otto wrote: > Mohamad Badra wrote: > > Add to that, if SHA-1 will be broken, this does not > > mean that HMAC_hash is automatically broken since TLS-PRF > > uses HMAC_hash instead of hash. > > A short look in the abstract of RFC 2104, HMAC, shows us the relation: > "The cryptographic strength of HMAC depends on the properties of the > underlying hash function." You might be interested in reading the original HMAC paper (Bellare, Canetti & Krawczyk, "Keyed Hash Functions for Message Authentication", CRYPTO '96), available from here: http://www.research.ibm.com/security/keyed-md5.html It has extensive discussion about the relation, i.e. what is required from the underlying hash function. In particular, secure HMACs can be constructed from some hash functions that on their own are not secure hash functions. Best regards, Pasi
- RE: Re: SHA-0 Broken, (continued)
- RE: Re: SHA-0 Broken Joseph Salowey, August 17 2004
-
Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken Mohamad Badra, August 18 2004
- Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken Florent Bersani, September 10 2004
- Re: Re: SHA-0 Broken Mohamad Badra, September 10 2004
Results generated by Tiger Technologies using MHonArc.