From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Dave Eckhardt <davide+p9@cs.cmu.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <f4d8fa40902040949m1e7040d9m3da148e2ed13d665@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <20914.1233832787.1@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Thu,  5 Feb 2009 06:19:47 -0500
Message-ID: <20915.1233832787@lunacy.ugrad.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Some arithmetic [was: Re: Sources Gone?]
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9676c80c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> 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