Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Installation:
Gentoo Handbook
Installation Docs

Documentation:
Home
Listing
About Gentoo
Philosophy
Social Contract

Resources:
Bug Tracker
Developer List
Discussion Forums
Gentoo BitTorrents
Gentoo Linux Enhancement Proposals
IRC Channels
Mailing Lists
Mirrors
Name and Logo Guidelines
Online Package Database
Security Announcements
Staffing Needs
Supporting Vendors
View our CVS

Graphics:
Logos and themes
Icons
ScreenShots

Miscellaneous Resources:
Gentoo Linux Store
Gentoo-hosted projects
IBM dW/Intel article archive




List Archive: gentoo-scm
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-scm: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-scm@g.o
From: Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o>
Subject: Re: gpg signing of commits, was: Progress summary, 2009/06/01
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 03:50:35 +0200
On Friday 05 June 2009, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:59:18PM +0200, Robert Buchholz wrote:
...
> > 2. It is not well designed (cryptographically)
> > OpenGPG allows the usage of a set of cryptographic hash function to
> > sign a document. This allows people to switch to a different
> > function once attacks against one algorithm become known. This has
> > been recently seen with SHA-1:
> > http://www.debian-administration.org/users/dkg/weblog/48
>
> I only stated that we need to offer GPG signing of commits. I did NOT
> specify the content of commits, other than noting that the commit
> message and the content needs to be signed together.

I don't think I understood what you meant to say, sorry. As I understand 
the current proposal, it would be over the SHA-1 of the objects, the 
parent and the commit message.


> > The git signing, however, relies on the collision resistance of
> > SHA-1 as that algorithm is used to identify objects in the
> > repository. We cannot migrate away from it easily. This has been
> > discussed upstream at length and Linus pointed out that 'the
> > "signed tags" security does depend on the hashes being
> > cryptographically strong.':
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/26106/focus=
> >26125
>
> The collision is going to come along anyway.
>
> Resigning would have to be done regardless of what we sign in Git.
> Not sure if you followed more recent discussions than one in 2006.
> The entire Git foodchain will suffer when it comes time to migrate
> away from SHA-2. Presently discussions of it imply that it's to be
> done probably as a versioned change, after the NIST hash competition
> comes up with a viable answer.

I have not seen any statements that would indicate they intended to 
switch ever, do you have a reference? I only found discussions as 
recent as April 2008. If it will be possible to use one (at that time) 
stronger hash function, my argument is defeated. I wanted to point out 
that right now they only support one function that is increasingly 
weakened, and I have the feeling upstream will only act once collisions 
become practical, which is -IMHO- too late.


Robert
Attachment:
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)
Replies:
Re: gpg signing of commits, was: Progress summary, 2009/06/01
-- Robin H. Johnson
References:
Progress summary, 2009/06/01
-- Robin H. Johnson
gpg signing of commits, was: Progress summary, 2009/06/01
-- Robert Buchholz
Re: gpg signing of commits, was: Progress summary, 2009/06/01
-- Robin H. Johnson
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-scm: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: gpg signing of commits, was: Progress summary, 2009/06/01
Next by thread:
Re: gpg signing of commits, was: Progress summary, 2009/06/01
Previous by date:
Re: Progress summary, 2009/06/01
Next by date:
Re: gpg signing of commits, was: Progress summary, 2009/06/01


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Donate to support our development efforts.

Gentoo Centric Hosting: vr.org

VR Hosted

Tek Alchemy

Tek Alchemy

SevenL.net

SevenL.net

php|architect

php|architect

Copyright 2001-2007 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Email www@gentoo.org.