<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.technet.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>To SHA-1 or not to SHA-1</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/ms_schweiz_security_blog/archive/2005/08/31/410025.aspx</link><description>Three Chinese researchers have further refined an attack on the encryption standard frequently used to digitally sign documents, making the attack 64 times faster and leaving cryptographers to debate whether the standard, known as the Secure Hash Algorithm,</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>SHA-1 o non SHA-1... buttatelo via il pi</title><link>http://blogs.technet.com/ms_schweiz_security_blog/archive/2005/08/31/410025.aspx#410027</link><pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2005 16:52:51 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">d5e57398-b9ef-4490-9955-07cbb4e4a80d:410027</guid><dc:creator>Lorenzo Barbieri @ UGIblogs!</dc:creator><description /></item></channel></rss>