From: Dave Eckhardt <davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Some arithmetic [was: Re: Sources Gone?]
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 06:19:47 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20915.1233832787@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f4d8fa40902040949m1e7040d9m3da148e2ed13d665@mail.gmail.com>
>> Assuming SHA-1 is indeed cryptographically secure (which is the
>> assumption made by the venti paper)
>
> Well, I read it like it was just sufficiently secure against
> unintended collisions.
>
> It's not intended to encrypt, but to efficiently store data.
While SHA-1 is indeed not intended to encrypt, it *is* intended
to be a secure hash (hence the name). In order for it to do that
job, it must be computationally difficult for somebody to find
colliding material. If it's "easy" to guess venti scores for
file-system roots, that suggests that SHA-1 systematically
doesn't cover certain parts of the output space. If that is true,
that would be a big help for people trying to find collisions
(and, hence, forge signatures). It could be that way, but a lot
of people are still acting in ways which will be painful if it is.
Said another way: SHA-1 is designed to be a different kind of
"checksum" than CRC-32. CRC's are designed to defend against
accidental corruption, but SHA-1 really is designed to make
deliberate collisions hard.
Dave Eckhardt
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-05 11:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 71+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-23 11:56 [9fans] Sources Gone? Gregory Pavelcak
2009-01-23 14:15 ` erik quanstrom
2009-01-23 14:54 ` lucio
2009-01-23 15:09 ` erik quanstrom
2009-01-27 22:59 ` Uriel
2009-01-27 23:32 ` Russ Cox
2009-01-28 0:58 ` Kenji Arisawa
2009-01-28 5:06 ` Uriel
2009-01-28 11:46 ` Iruata Souza
2009-01-28 12:41 ` Charles Forsyth
2009-01-28 13:53 ` erik quanstrom
2009-01-29 12:12 ` Uriel
2009-01-29 13:37 ` erik quanstrom
2009-01-29 16:45 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-01-29 16:15 ` ron minnich
2009-01-29 16:34 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-01-29 16:30 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-01-29 17:18 ` Russ Cox
2009-01-29 17:30 ` erik quanstrom
2009-01-29 17:43 ` Russ Cox
2009-01-29 17:39 ` gas
2009-01-29 21:09 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-01-29 21:42 ` erik quanstrom
2009-01-29 23:05 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-01-29 23:49 ` erik quanstrom
2009-01-30 0:28 ` Russ Cox
2009-01-30 4:46 ` [9fans] Venti and version control (Was: Sources Gone?) lucio
2009-01-30 5:18 ` [9fans] Sources Gone? lucio
2009-01-31 13:45 ` Bruce Ellis
2009-01-31 18:12 ` Akshat Kumar
2009-01-31 18:44 ` Bruce Ellis
2009-02-02 22:33 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-02-02 22:43 ` erik quanstrom
2009-02-02 23:26 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-02-02 23:39 ` erik quanstrom
2009-02-03 10:04 ` Richard Miller
2009-02-03 4:23 ` lucio
2009-02-03 5:23 ` erik quanstrom
2009-02-03 5:47 ` lucio
2009-02-03 12:54 ` erik quanstrom
2009-02-03 13:38 ` roger peppe
2009-02-03 14:01 ` erik quanstrom
2009-02-03 16:13 ` Anthony Sorace
2009-02-03 16:22 ` erik quanstrom
2009-02-03 16:51 ` roger peppe
2009-02-03 16:55 ` erik quanstrom
2009-02-03 17:30 ` Brian L. Stuart
2009-02-05 1:24 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-02-03 17:42 ` lucio
2009-02-03 17:40 ` lucio
2009-02-03 17:51 ` erik quanstrom
2009-02-04 8:40 ` sqweek
2009-02-04 16:40 ` [9fans] Some arithmetic [was: Re: Sources Gone?] Nathaniel W Filardo
2009-02-04 17:10 ` Nathaniel W Filardo
2009-02-04 17:49 ` hiro
2009-02-05 11:19 ` Dave Eckhardt [this message]
2009-02-05 17:38 ` Russ Cox
2009-02-05 17:41 ` erik quanstrom
2009-02-05 18:08 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-02-05 18:22 ` Micah Stetson
2009-02-05 18:29 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-02-05 18:31 ` erik quanstrom
2009-02-05 18:32 ` hiro
2009-01-30 4:25 ` [9fans] Sources Gone? lucio
2009-01-29 22:33 ` Russ Cox
2009-01-29 22:58 ` Roman V. Shaposhnik
2009-01-29 23:06 ` Russ Cox
2009-01-29 12:13 ` kokamoto
2009-01-27 23:11 ` Patrick Kristiansen
2009-01-28 0:11 ` Tharaneedharan Vilwanathan
2009-01-28 5:55 ` lucio
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20915.1233832787@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu \
--to=davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu \
--cc=9fans@9fans.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).