| 1 |
W dniu pią, 20.10.2017 o godzinie 18∶42 -0400, użytkownik Anton Molyboha |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Gordon Pettey <petteyg359@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Hanno Böck <hanno@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 21:08:40 +0200 |
| 8 |
> > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > > manifest-hashes = SHA512 SHA3_512 |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > Counterproposal: Just use SHA512. |
| 13 |
> > > |
| 14 |
> > > There isn't any evidence that any SHA2-based hash algorithm is going to |
| 15 |
> > > be broken any time soon. If that changes there will very likely be |
| 16 |
> > > decades of warning before a break becomes practical. |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > Having just one hash is simpler and using a well supported one like |
| 19 |
> > > SHA512 may make things easier than using something that's still not |
| 20 |
> > > very widely supported. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > Yet having more than one lets you match make sure nobody hijacked your |
| 24 |
> > manifest file when an attack vector is inevitably discovered for the old |
| 25 |
> > new algorithm (whether SHA2, SHA3, or BLAKE2), because you'll be able to |
| 26 |
> > confirm the file is the same one that matched the old checksum in addition |
| 27 |
> > to the new one. |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Would it make sense then to support several hashes but let the user |
| 31 |
> optionally turn off the verification of some of them, depending on the |
| 32 |
> user's security vs performance requirements? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I won't block anyone from implementing such an option but I won't spend |
| 36 |
my time on it either. However, if you believe verifying two checksums |
| 37 |
could be a problem, then I have serious doubts if you hardware is |
| 38 |
capable of building anything. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
Best regards, |
| 42 |
Michał Górny |
Archives