MD5 and SHA cracked/broken...

[Paul Rubin]

David Bolen <db3l at fitlinxx.com> writes:
> But why bother?  Clearly in this case I'm in control of the md5sum's
> publication (since I'm formulating both files to match), so why
> wouldn't I just publish the trojan one in the first place with an MD5
> that matches the trojan?  Any user of my package is already trusting
> that any MD5 I publish is in fact for a proper file, so they are in
> effect already trusting me.

No.  They may not trust you, but they might instead trust another user
who studied the file very carefully, and then announced that the file
with md5 checksum so-and-so was ok.  At that point you can slip in a
different file with the same checksum, that didn't get examined so
carefully.