weakness in sha 1

[vedaal at hush.com]

Atom 'Smasher' atom at suspicious.org, 
on Sun Sep 26 07:11:54 CEST 2004, wrote:

> if dh/dsa can be modified to accept greater than 160 size and use sha

> 256, great, if not, then it might be prudent to look into a new hash

> design that would be non md5/non sha-1 based that would still allow

> dh/dsa signing at the 160 level
==============

] how about RIPEMD-160?

]100% compatible with DSS (DSA), already part of GnuPG and it's neither
]SHA 
]nor MD5 based.

but is ripemd based, ;-)
for which a weakness is already demonstrated
see
http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/199.pdf

] even without a weakness in any flavors of SHA i'd like to see DSA 
] (the scalable algorithm) formally adopted into larger varieties of
  
] DSS (the current standard) to allow larger hashes and larger keys.
i 
] guess if]/when that happens DSS will become DSS-0 and larger 
] variants will become DSS-1, 

agree 100%

vedaal



Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
secure FREE email: http://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
http://www.hushmail.com/services-messenger?l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: 
http://www.hushmail.com/about-affiliate?l=427