Re: schneier says sha-1 broken

[Dries Schellekens <gwyllion_(_at_)_ulyssis_(_dot_)_org>]

Dries Schellekens wrote:

> It turns out Schneier did not have access to the paper and misjudged the 
> results.
>
> "it seems that Schneier forgot to mention that the paper has a footnote 
> which says that the attack on full SHA-1 only works if some padding 
> (which SHA-1 requires) is not done."
> from: http://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000355.html
>
> So SHA-1 is not broken at all, only reduced round versions and full 
> SHA-1 without this padding. But these are important results that perhaps 
> can be improved.

Actually this reminds me a lot of the Crypto-Gram in which Schneier 
claimed AES was (may have been) broken. Deja vu:
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0209.html#1


Cheers,

Dries