<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>SHA-1 Archives - ITBlogSec.com</title>
	<atom:link href="https://itblogsec.com/tag/sha-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://itblogsec.com/tag/sha-1/</link>
	<description>IT, network, security and hacking</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:28:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Shattered &#8211; SHA-1 is definitely dead</title>
		<link>https://itblogsec.com/shattered-sha-1-definitely-dead/</link>
					<comments>https://itblogsec.com/shattered-sha-1-definitely-dead/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:58:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SHA-1]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://itblogsec.com/?p=800</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Researchers at Google have realized the first real world collision attack against SHA-1, creating two documents with different content but identical hashes.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://itblogsec.com/shattered-sha-1-definitely-dead/">Shattered &#8211; SHA-1 is definitely dead</a> appeared first on <a href="https://itblogsec.com">ITBlogSec.com</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>SHAttered &#8211; SHA-1 is definitely dead</h2>
<p id="ff46" class="graf graf--p graf-after--figure" style="text-align: justify;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--p-strong">SHA-1</strong> was introduced in <strong>1995</strong> and, in 2015, <a class="markup--anchor markup--p-anchor" href="https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/when_will_we_se.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/when_will_we_se.html">researchers disclosed a method</a> that lowered the cost of an <strong>SHA-1</strong> collision to <strong>$75,000-$120,000 using Amazon’s EC2 cloud</strong> over a period of a few months. Despite steps taken by major companies to move away from SHA-1, the hash function is still widely used. Now researchers at Google have realized the first real world collision attack against <strong>SHA-1</strong>, creating two documents with different content but identical hashes.</p>
<p class="graf graf--p graf-after--figure" style="text-align: justify;">In <a title="Cryptography" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography">cryptography</a>, <b>SHA-1</b> (<b>Secure Hash Algorithm 1</b>) is a <strong><a title="Cryptographic hash function" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function">cryptographic hash function</a></strong> designed by the United States <a title="National Security Agency" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency">National Security Agency</a> and is a U.S. <a class="mw-redirect" title="Federal Information Processing Standard" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Information_Processing_Standard">Federal Information Processing Standard</a> published by the United States <strong><a title="National Institute of Standards and Technology" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology">NIST</a></strong>. SHA-1 produces a <strong>160-bit (20-byte) hash</strong> value known as a <a class="mw-redirect" title="Message digest" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_digest">message digest</a>. A SHA-1 hash value is typically rendered as a hexadecimal number, <strong>40 digits long</strong>.</p>
<p class="graf graf--p graf-after--figure" style="text-align: justify;"><a href="https://itblogsec.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SHA1_conflict.png"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="border-image alignnone wp-image-801 size-full" src="https://itblogsec.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SHA1_conflict.png" alt="shattered" width="640" height="348" srcset="https://itblogsec.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SHA1_conflict.png 640w, https://itblogsec.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SHA1_conflict-300x163.png 300w" sizes="(max-width: 640px) 100vw, 640px" /></a></p>
<p id="0058" class="graf graf--p graf-after--figure">This technique has been dubbed “SHA-1 shattered” or “SHAttered”:</p>
<blockquote id="c05a" class="graf graf--pullquote graf-after--p">
<p>Today, 10 years after of SHA-1 was first introduced, we are announcing the first practical technique for generating a collision. This represents the culmination of two years of research that sprung from a collaboration between the <a class="markup--anchor markup--pullquote-anchor" href="https://www.cwi.nl/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-href="https://www.cwi.nl/">CWI Institute in Amsterdam</a> and Google.</p>
</blockquote>
<h3>Q&amp;A</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><em>Who is capable of mounting this attack?</em><br />
 </strong>This attack required over 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 SHA1 computations. This took the equivalent processing power as 6,500 years of single-CPU computations and 110 years of single-GPU computations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong class="markup--strong markup--blockquote-strong"><em>How does this attack compare to the brute force one?</em><br />
 </strong>The SHAttered attack is 100,000 faster than the brute force attack that relies on the birthday paradox. The brute force attack would require 12,000,000 GPU years to complete, and it is therefore impractical.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em><strong>Isn&#8217;t SHA-1 deprecated?</strong></em><br />
 Today, many applications still rely on SHA-1, even though theoretical attacks have been known since 2005, and SHA-1 was officially deprecated by NIST in 2011. We hope our practical attack on SHA-1 will increase awareness and convince the industry to quickly move to safer alteratives, such as SHA-256.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em><strong>How can I protect myself?</strong></em><br />
 You can use <a href="https://shattered.it/" target="_blank">file tester</a> to check your files. If you use Chrome, you will be automatically protected from insecure TLS/SSL certificates, and Firefox has quickly reacted to this announcement, and deprecated SHA-1 as of February 24th, 2017. Files sent via Gmail or saved in Google Drive are already automatically tested against this attack.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em><strong>What types of systems are affected?</strong></em><br />
 Any application that relies on SHA-1 for digital signatures, file integrity, or file identification is potentially vulnerable. These include:</p>
<ul>
<li>Digital Certificate signatures</li>
<li>Email PGP/GPG signatures</li>
<li>Software vendor signatures</li>
<li>Software updates</li>
<li>ISO checksums</li>
<li>Backup systems</li>
<li>Deduplication systems</li>
<li>GIT<br />
 &#8230;</li>
</ul>
<p><em><strong>How do I patch/upgrade my system?</strong></em><br />
 Consider using safer alternatives, such as SHA-256, or SHA-3.</p>
<p>More technical information are available on the dedicated site, <a href="https://shattered.it/" target="_blank">shattered.it</a>:</p>
<p><span style="font-size: 8pt;"><strong>source:</strong> <a href="https://andreafortuna.org" target="_blank">https://andreafortuna.org</a>, <a href="https://shattered.it/" target="_blank">https://shattered.it/</a></span></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://itblogsec.com/shattered-sha-1-definitely-dead/">Shattered &#8211; SHA-1 is definitely dead</a> appeared first on <a href="https://itblogsec.com">ITBlogSec.com</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://itblogsec.com/shattered-sha-1-definitely-dead/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/?utm_source=w3tc&utm_medium=footer_comment&utm_campaign=free_plugin

Object Caching 0/134 objects using XCache
Page Caching using Disk: Enhanced 

Served from: itblogsec.com @ 2026-06-02 22:26:07 by W3 Total Cache
-->