| 1 |
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Aaron W. Swenson wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> My argument is Git using SHA-1 for checksumming is not the weakest |
| 4 |
> part of our security model. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
I had always assumed that robbat2's series of GLEPs (57 to 61) would |
| 7 |
be implemented at some point. So security from the developer to the |
| 8 |
master repository would be ensured by using a secure channel for |
| 9 |
commits, and distribution from the repository to users would use |
| 10 |
secure hashes (SHA-256 or better) and gpg signatures. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I didn't see any mention of this in the discussion, though. Have these |
| 13 |
plans been abandoned, and are we now planning to distribute the tree |
| 14 |
to users via Git, where everything goes through the bottleneck of a |
| 15 |
SHA-1 sum, which was never intended as a security feature? [1] |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If this is so, why don't we abandon all those fancy SHA-512s and |
| 18 |
WHIRLPOOLs in our Manifest files, and replace them by a single SHA-1? |
| 19 |
Altogether, this would save about 50 MB of space in the tree. :) |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Ulrich |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
[1] Tech Talk: Linus Torvalds on git: "[...] the point is the SHA-1, |
| 25 |
as far as Git is concerned, isn't even a security feature. It's purely |
| 26 |
a consistency check. [...] It has nothing at all to do with security, |
| 27 |
it's just the best hash you can get." |
| 28 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8&t=56m20s |
Archives