| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/20/2017 11:10 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> I support Hanno's suggestion of doing just SHA512, but would be |
| 5 |
>> interested in hearing opinions from others who have apparent |
| 6 |
>> security/crypto experience. Maybe the Security project can weigh the |
| 7 |
>> suggestions as well? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The whole discussion is moot so long as we don't have OpenPGP signed |
| 11 |
> gentoo repository in rsync. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> SHA2-512 is generally quicker than sha256 on 64 bit architectures, but |
| 14 |
> considerably slower for some architectures. Introducing a non-optimized |
| 15 |
> keccak on top of it will have a significant negative performance impact |
| 16 |
> for these arches without much security gain. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> if we still want two separate hashes, the choice of sha2 and sha3 |
| 19 |
> compination is a good one given they are based on separate constructs. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> But IMHO we should start where things matter and complete an |
| 22 |
> implementation for OpenPGP signatures of MetaManifests in Portage. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This is why I use webrsync-gpg. Git commits are supposed to be |
| 26 |
GPG-signed, so that may be suitable for your purposes. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Cheers, |
| 29 |
R0b0t1. |
Archives