The math is the proof of concept when an attack costs that much money to pull off. Or the various papers that show successful attacks on reduced-round versions of the hash.
Do you not accept those? What would you accept as a proof of concept?
_That is enough to distribute malicious code though, at least in certain scenarios. Someone might create a setup where reviewers check/sign one version of the source code, and what gets distributed is another version with the same hash._
Well the proof of concept without actually having two colliding files is really simple, so I thought it was generally understood.
Here's the easiest to explain way: Upload the malicious version of the file to github. Send an innocuous patch to the kernel devs that creates a file with the same hash. It gets accepted, and anyone that downloads the kernel from github gets the malicious version. Done. That's a small fraction of linux downloaders, but this is just the proof of concept.
Comments
The math is the proof of concept when an attack costs that much money to pull off. Or the various papers that show successful attacks on reduced-round versions of the hash.
Do you not accept those? What would you accept as a proof of concept?
I expected a proof of concept for this statement:
_That is enough to distribute malicious code though, at least in certain scenarios. Someone might create a setup where reviewers check/sign one version of the source code, and what gets distributed is another version with the same hash._
Well the proof of concept without actually having two colliding files is really simple, so I thought it was generally understood.
Here's the easiest to explain way: Upload the malicious version of the file to github. Send an innocuous patch to the kernel devs that creates a file with the same hash. It gets accepted, and anyone that downloads the kernel from github gets the malicious version. Done. That's a small fraction of linux downloaders, but this is just the proof of concept.