Re: SHA1 collisions found
- From
- Jason Cooper <git@lakedaemon.net>
- Date
- Feb 26, 2017, 00:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20170226001607.GH11350@io.lakedaemon.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <CA+dhYEVwLGNZh-hbcJm+kMR4W45VbwvSVY+7YKt0V9jg_b_M4g@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 01:31:32AM +0100, ankostis wrote:
> That is why I believe that some HASH (e.g. SHA-3) must be the blessed one. > All git >= 3.x.x must support at least this one (for naming and > cross-referencing between objects).
I would stress caution here. SHA3 has survived the NIST competition, but that's about it. It has *not* received nearly as much scrutiny as SHA2.
SHA2 is a similar construction to SHA1 (Merkle–Damgård [1]) so it makes sense to be leery of it, but I would argue it's seasoning merits serious consideration.
Ideally, bless SHA2-384 (minimum) as the next hash. Five or so years down the road, if SHA3 is still in good standing, bless it as the next hash.
thx,
Jason.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle%E2%80%93Damg%C3%A5rd_construction