Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <zx2c4@g.o>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal: use only one hash function in manifest files
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2022 21:35:44
Message-Id: CAHmME9pnrLS9D1H7S6eo9yKvgKenyvytLysrt7cUXtuKc8yS7A@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] proposal: use only one hash function in manifest files by Ulrich Mueller
1 Hi Ulrich,
2
3 On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:15 PM Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 > >>>>> On Tue, 05 Apr 2022, Jason A Donenfeld wrote:
6 >
7 > > Huh. Something not brought up there or https://bugs.gentoo.org/784710
8 > > is the fact that the _security_ of the system reduces to SHA-512 as
9 > > used by our GPG signatures.
10 >
11 > The hash algorithm would be the least of my concerns about the security
12 > of these signatures.
13 >
14 > IIUC, the secret signing key is stored on a machine that is connected to
15 > the network (Infra, please correct me if I'm wrong). So there are other
16 > more likely attack vectors than a preimage attack on a 512 bit hash
17 > function.
18
19 You missed the point, which is that having two hashes, SHA512 and
20 BLAKE2b, doesn't actually help anything, since an attacker only must
21 attack SHA512 in order to break the signature system, which is
22 actually what we're relying on for security. Yes there are other
23 attacks too on the signature system. But in terms of hashing, my point
24 is that adding an additional hash to manifest files to the one used by
25 the signature doesn't help anything from a security perspective, since
26 if you have an attack on the signature's hash, then no additional
27 hashing is going to actually help.
28
29 Jason