| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I don't understand. Isn't it the same motion we put down just 2 months |
| 4 |
ago [1]? Or is this something new? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
If this isn't something new, what has changed since May [2]? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
To remember: Currently we have two different hashes for every distfile. |
| 9 |
If we are going to throw this data away, we should really have good |
| 10 |
reasons to do that. Like said during that council meeting, BLAKE2B and |
| 11 |
SHA512 are competing hashes. What's wrong with having a backup plan even |
| 12 |
for a very unlikely scenario, that BLAKE2B will get broken? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
It's not like SHA512 is requiring any additional deps which are |
| 15 |
unmaintained or something like that. SHA has even hardware acceleration |
| 16 |
support in modern systems. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
In addition it is even more likely that you will find SHA checksum files |
| 19 |
with upstream release tarballs than BLAKE2B files. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Remember that verify-sig.eclass I criticized last year? Of course some |
| 22 |
scenarios I outlined were very unlikely and I never expected that I can |
| 23 |
run around in near future saying "I told you". But in January 2021, |
| 24 |
CVE-2021-3345 happened in libgcrypt... |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
So again: Why should we throw the data we currently have away and put |
| 27 |
Gentoo unnecessarily at risk that we will end up without hashes because |
| 28 |
the only hash algorithm we used became broken and given that we will be |
| 29 |
unable to re-hash every file in a timely manner (remember how long it |
| 30 |
took to get a BLAKE2B hash for every file)? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
See also: |
| 35 |
========= |
| 36 |
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/784710 |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
[2] https://projects.gentoo.org/council/meeting-logs/20210509.txt |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Regards, |
| 43 |
Thomas Deutschmann / Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 44 |
fpr: C4DD 695F A713 8F24 2AA1 5638 5849 7EE5 1D5D 74A5 |
Archives