4 ms·

Does git have any path away from SHA1? I know the attack isn't practical today, but the writing is on the wall.

• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• paulddraper 10y ago
  The writing has been on the wall for a long time, but Linus has been dead against it. > And we should all digitally sign every single object too, and we should use 4096-bit PGP keys and unguessable passphrases that are at least 20 words in length. And we should then build a bunker 5 miles underground, encased in lead, so that somebody cannot flip a few bits with a ray-gun, and make us believe that the sha1's match when they don't. Oh, and we need to all wear aluminum propeller beanies to make sure that they don't use that ray-gun to make us do the modification _ourselves_. He says it's not a security issue, so there are no "attacks" to protect against. > the point is the SHA-1, as far as Git is concerned, isn't even a security feature. It's purely a consistency check. The security parts are elsewhere, so a lot of people assume that since Git uses SHA-1 and SHA-1 is used for cryptographically secure stuff, they think that, OK, it's a huge security feature. It has nothing at all to do with security, it's just the best hash you can get. I don't know how correct that is.
  • philipn 10y ago
    At least in the current discussion, Linus says that eventually moving away from SHA1 in Git is a "no brainer," but that this announcement isn't a "sky is falling" moment. (e.g. https://public-inbox.org/git/CA+55aFz98r7NC_3BW_1HU9-0C-HcrFou3=0gmRcS38=-x8dmVw@mail.gmail.com/ https://public-inbox.org/git/CA+55aFz98r7NC_3BW_1HU9-0C-HcrF...)
    • paulddraper 10y ago
      Huh. And I've already got this 4-mile deep bunker hole...