On 1 November 2013 10:05, Christopher Head <chead@chead.ca> wrote:

> For your purposes, YOU provide the original files, so MD5 should be able
> to protect against even malicious modification=97successfully breaking th=
at
> would require a second preimage attack=97and it'll certainly be good enou=
gh
> for accidental file damage.
>

Actually attackers are using MD5 weaknesses to modify and sign files and
messages. Do not get me wrong, it is certainly much better than nothing or
just a parity or CRC32 algorithm and definitely a good enough solution to
check if the transmission or recovery of a file was successful. However,
people are shifting from MD5 to SHA1 or even SHA256 for good reason. MD5
can be generated on FPGAs or even on Graphics cards surprisingly fast, and
that's what it makes it vulnerable to attack.

Tamas




>
> --
> Christopher Head
> Sent from my phone; if you need a digital signature, ask for a resend.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>



--=20
int main() { char *a,*s,*q; printf(s=3D"int main() { char *a,*s,*q;
printf(s=3D%s%s%s, q=3D%s%s%s%s,s,q,q,a=3D%s%s%s%s,q,q,q,a,a,q); }",
q=3D"\"",s,q,q,a=3D"\\",q,q,q,a,a,q); }
--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.