Timeline for How hard is it to generate a simultaneous MD5 and SHA1 collision?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2, 2017 at 3:22 | comment | added | phylae | SHA-1 collisions have now been found. SHA-1 is still slightly less broken than MD5. But SHA-1 is now officially broken in practice as well as in theory. security.googleblog.com/2017/02/… | |
| Aug 17, 2016 at 15:03 | vote | accept | xyz | ||
| Jun 10, 2016 at 21:55 | answer | added | poncho♦ | timeline score: 21 | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 19:10 | comment | added | Jedi | Possible duplicate post from sister site | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 19:05 | comment | added | Jedi | Yes, it would definitely lead to fewer collisions. But, there are other hashing algorithms which are faster and have better collision resistance (than MD5...), which might be more suitable. Basically The solution seems to be hash algorithms that are very slow in comparison may not be an accurate assertion. | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 19:00 | comment | added | poncho♦ | @Jedi: I believe his idea is "if we generate a hash of the form $MD5(M) || SHA(M)$, wouldn't this be stronger than MD5 or SHA1 individually?" | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 18:57 | comment | added | Jedi | Do you have a specific use case in mind where you would like to use two different hash functions? | |
| Jun 10, 2016 at 18:34 | history | asked | xyz | CC BY-SA 3.0 |