Re: Further MD5 breaks: Creating a rogue CA certificate

Paul:

> If the IETF feels that adding randomization to signatures is 
> important, we should define randomized signature functions. We could 
> start with NIST Draft SP 800-106 
> (<http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/800-106/2nd-Draft_SP800-106_July2008.pdf>). 
> However, I think that doing so is sending the wrong message: we 
> should instead be encouraging the use of non-broken hash functions.
This is a very different thing than a BCP that the recommends that 
the certificate serial number include some random bits.
Russ