Re: [OT] Micro$oft versus security

[Raphael Marmier <raphael@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

For those, like me, who are not at ease with mathematics but still want 
to have a practical understanding of the problem, I can only recommand 
O'Reilly's "Secure programming Cookbook for C and C++". Although I don't 
 cod in C, it gave me a good insight into applied crypto and security 
in general.

cheers

Raphaël

Rob D. wrote:
> walt wrote:
>
> > I just got this item from SANS, and I still can't quite believe
> > what my eyes are seeing:
> > ==============================================
> >
> >   --Microsoft Bans Weak Crypto in New Code
> > (15 September 2005)
> > A new policy at Microsoft bans developers from using functions using the
> > DES, MD4, MD5 and in some cases the SHA1 encryption algorithms in their
> > code because increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks are threatening
> > the security of these algorithms.  Microsoft recommends the use of the
> > (Secure Hash Algorithm) SHA256 encryption algorithm and (Advanced
> > Encryption Standard) AES cipher.  The decision comes as part of
> > Microsoft's twice-a-year update to its Secure Development Lifecycle
> > policies.  The company also hopes eventually to remove the vulnerable
> > encryption from older code.
> > http://www.eweek.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=160307,00.asp
> > [Editor's Note (Schultz): Microsoft deserves a proverbial round of
> > applause for its decision concerning use of cryptography in its
> > products.
> > (Schneier): This will improve potential security for their products at
> > the cost of backwards compatibility -- I call that a good trade-off.]
> > ===============================================
> >
> > I have Schneier's second edition of Applied Cryptography (which is
> > where I learned what little I know about the subject) and he does a
> > good imitation of someone who really knows the subject.
> >
> > I can cite decades of bad (or ridiculous) decisions by M$ concerning
> > anything to do with security -- but seeing Schneier's name attached to
> > this article makes me wonder if things have changed...
> >
> > Anyone here agree that MD5 and SHA1 are 'weak' crypto?  Any other
> > thoughts about the subject?
>
>
>
> http://www.cits.rub.de/MD5Collisions/
>
> To many crypto/authentication algorithms, if two files (or messages)
> have the same hash and same size, then they're identical.
>
> I think the general consensus in the crypto community is that MD5 and
> SHA-1 shouldn't be used in any new designs, especially considering that
> stronger (and longer) hash algorithms already exist.  If the
> researchers keep cracking away at MD5, schemes that already use it might
> have to be outright replaced, if that's not already the case.
>
> I wish I was more of an expert on this, and apologies to the crypto
> community if I've misrepresented their views.