nanog mailing list archives
Re: MD5 is insecure
From: Pedro Prado via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2025 21:03:47 +0100
(Not a sec guy disclaimer) && (sorry I think I don’t see the full history of the thread for some reason) Hashes are indeed a compromise - don’t provide sensitive information; only provide a good enough hint that you possess that information. Storing a hash instead of the key protects the key, but if it is a pub key there’s not so much point in protecting it… still, stealing the hash is mostly useless unless the hash can also be used on other devices. In that case it is effectively the same as having the”password”. Thinking quickly it might be slightly preferable to store a hash than the pub key if you don’t need to encrypt data back to the priv key owner… (/disclaimers and sorries) *Pedro Martins Prado* pedro.prado () gmail com / +353 83 036 1875 (FaceTime & WhatsApp) On Sun 31 Aug 2025 at 20:54, Dan Mahoney via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org> wrote:
On Aug 31, 2025, at 11:16, nanog--- via NANOG <nanog () lists nanog org>wrote:There is currently no known way to generate a private key that wouldmatch your private key hash, faster than brute force, and MD5 still provides adequate protection against brute-force attacks.While nobody should be designing new protocols using MD5 just becausethere is no reason to use a hash algorithm that has *any* known weaknesses, its known weaknesses are not relevant to this application.A method is known to generate two pieces of data with the same MD5 hash.This isn't the same thing as saying that a method is known to generate a piece of data with any given MD5 hash, or the same MD5 hash as another piece of data. And that’s why this isn’t a CVE with a CVSS score. It’s just an indication of someone cutting corners in a way I’ve never seen before, that makes me wonder what other choices were made. I say that much. -Dan _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/G2NJ5JEFPYNQJLYQX5VVJ47NPVPFLKSS/
_______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog () lists nanog org/message/VTHAEKSQPCFDKIZKWAHREXUEE5U6AHX6/
Current thread:
- Re: beware: being old sucks, (continued)
- Re: beware: being old sucks brent saner via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: beware: being old sucks Seth David Schoen via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: beware: being old sucks Tom Beecher via NANOG (Aug 31)
- RE: beware: being old sucks Gary Sparkes via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: preimage and collision attacks nanog--- via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: beware: being old sucks nanog--- via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: beware: being old sucks Liudvikas Bukys via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: beware: being old sucks Tom Beecher via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: MD5 is insecure nanog--- via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: MD5 is insecure Dan Mahoney via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: MD5 is insecure Pedro Prado via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: MD5 is insecure Krassimir Tzvetanov via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: MD5 is insecure brent saner via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: MD5 is insecure Tom Beecher via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: MD5 is insecure brent saner via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: MD5 is insecure Seth David Schoen via NANOG (Aug 31)
- Re: MD5 is insecure nanog--- via NANOG (Aug 31)
