3 ms·

> SHA-1 is still used in some important software like torrents and git. Which can be appropriate. Not every use of SHA-1 is security focused, it might also be

> SHA-1 is still used in some important software like torrents and git. Which can be appropriate. Not every use of SHA-1 is security focused, it might also be combined with a file size and used to check for file consistency. The same thing happened with MD5 (which is much more broken). People freaked out because some software was using the "insecure" algorithm while entirely missing that it was used a file consistency check (in combination with file size) rather than for security within its own right. If you're doing security work, you should already know that SHA-1 is unacceptable. If you aren't doing security work then you MIGHT want to look into something else but only if there would be a benefit to someone abusing a SHA-1 collision.

simias 10y ago
>Which can be appropriate I disagree. Obviously if you have a big distributed infrastructure (like git) then you won't be able to switch within a day, but that's a pretty extreme example. They should be working on moving away from it though, pandora's box is open now, it's only going to get easier and cheaper. There's no benefit until there's a benefit. If you're using a hash it's probably because you want a compact way to reference a resource, or maybe simply check it's integrity. If this property no longer holds then it's basically useless. You can ignore it until somebody decides to forge collisions in your system in order to corrupt files or DoS it somehow. Or you use SHA-1 to deduplicate your files, somebody stores two colliding PDFs and you delete one of them because you think they're dupes. So I don't think there's any nuance needed here. The word should be "stop using SHA-1". Otherwise people will keep making excuses not to do it until something important breaks.