| 1 |
On Saturday 19 November 2005 20:41, Mike Auty wrote: |
| 2 |
> If portage can already handle multiple hash formats, |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Portage can't handle multiple hash formats at the moment. It is only smart |
| 5 |
enough to not throw a fit when other hash formats appear. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> then perhaps it would just be best to start shifting the default hashing |
| 8 |
> algorithm from MD5 to SHA-256 or greater (which if you're going off |
| 9 |
> schneier's tips for safety is just about safe at the moment), rather than |
| 10 |
> requiring multiple hashes and guessing about their combined security? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
The user will be able to configure what algorithm(s) are used. Generation on |
| 13 |
the other hand needs to be done for at least MD5 and one other algorithm. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Having to maintain backwards compatibility with old versions of portage |
| 16 |
> is a good idea, however just how far back must be supported? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
A year is a good guide. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives