[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnumed-devel] GNotary
From: |
Ian Haywood |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnumed-devel] GNotary |
Date: |
Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:14:39 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050404) |
Karsten Hilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 04:53:42AM +1000, Tim Churches wrote:
>
>
>>>The hash is not md5 nut sha256 and ripmd160. I hope this makes a
>>>differences.
>>>If not. Tough luck.
>>
>>SHA256 is thought to be quite safe against both colision and pre-image
>>attacks for now.
>
> The important part in this remark is "for now" and not
> "quite safe".
>
> Any hash is liable to be successfully attacked eventually
> (is there an equivalent to one-time pads in "hash space" ?).
Yeah, the original document. ;-)
No point signing it: a signature involves a hash.
The notary would be equivalent to a networked backup service.
(which is of itself useful) Internet in Australia is too primitive
for this to be commerically possible, should be feasible in DE though.
Ian
- Re: [Gnumed-devel] GNotary,
Ian Haywood <=