- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 23:18:01 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11402 Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kornel@geekhood.net --- Comment #2 from Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net> 2010-11-24 23:18:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > This can potentially be mitigated by specifying particular hash algorithms that > can be used, so the browser can verify that the script actually hashes to the > provided value before committing it to the cache, but that still leaves us at > the mercy of hashing algorithms being strong. Obviously browsers would have to verify the hash and only share verified files. > but that still leaves us at the mercy of hashing algorithms being strong. Security of HTTPS is at mercy of hashing algorithms too. > Had this been specified before we knew that MD5 was broken, for example, the attack described above would now be completely doable even *with* hash verification. I disagree. Even today attack you've described is not know to be possible. Replacing library that has already been signed by another website requires preimage attack, and not merely a collision. It's possible to generate MD5 collisions, but there is no known preimage attack yet. If you only have a collision, you first need to convince attacked site to use specially crafted JavaScript file with unescaped, unmodified binary blob that you know collision for. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2010 23:18:03 UTC