Agree. Here we always have 2 factors to consider: how safe it is and how long
it takes to break. If time and cost to break are higher that the good we are
trying to protect, we can use what we have.
Carlos Vera
Internet Society Ecuador
www.isoc.org.ec
Síguenos @isocec
El 22/4/2015, a las 10:28, Phillip Hallam-Baker
<phill(_at_)hallambaker(_dot_)com> escribió:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 9:02 PM, Paul Wouters <paul(_at_)nohats(_dot_)ca>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, l(_dot_)wood(_at_)surrey(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk wrote:
Despite the existence of RFC6151...
http://www.loginwall.com/Solutions.php
6151 only talks about MD5 Message-Digest and the HMAC-MD5.
It does not include "MD5 encryption" :)
Paul
For this particular application, MD5 is not the weakest link in the
chain, nor are the weaknesses in MD5 actually relevant.
I would not use MD5 in any application simply because there are
alternatives that don't require detailed explanation of why they are
safe. But I am pretty sure that unless we are talking about machine
generated passwords, an attack on MD5 is going to have a much higher
workfactor than brute forcing the password space.