Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There was no surprise break of MD5 – it came after plenty of warning, so even a hypothetical 1995 deployment would've had years for a gradual transition, and continuity-of-reference via correlation-mapping to a new hash.

So even that hypothetical example – with an early, old, and ultimately flawed secure hash – reveals hash-based as more robust than the alternatives.

And in practice, hash-names are as strong or stronger than the implied alternative of "trust by source" – because identification of the source is, under the covers, also reliant on secure hashes… plus other systems that can independently fail.

We have experience now with how secure hash functions weaken and fail. It's happened for a few once-trusted hashes, with warning, slowly over decades. And as a result, the current recommended secure hashes are much improved – their collision-resistance could outlive everyone here.

Compare that to the rate of surprise compromises in SSL libraries or the PKI/CA infrastructure – several a year. Or the fact that SSL websites were still offering sessions bootstrapped from MD5-based PKI certificates after MD5 collisions were demonstrated.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: