Re: Hash algorithm analysis

From: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 3, 2018, 02:57 UTC
Message-ID: <20180803025709.GD197924@aiede.svl.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <MWHPR21MB01738A46E37527E45E950937C42F0@MWHPR21MB0173.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Dan,

Dan Shumow wrote:

[replying out of order for convenience]

Show 5 quoted lines

> However, I agree with Adam Langley that basically all of the
> finalists for a hash function replacement are about the same for the
> security needs of Git.  I think that, for this community, other
> software engineering considerations should be more important to the
> selection process.

Thanks for this clarification, which provides some useful context to your opinion that was previously relayed by Dscho.

[...]

Show 6 quoted lines

> So, as one of the coauthors of the SHA-1 collision detection code, I
> just wanted to chime in and say I'm glad to see the move to a longer
> hash function.  Though, as a cryptographer, I have a few thoughts on
> the matter that I thought I would share.
>
> I think that moving to SHA256 is a fine change, and I support it.

More generally, thanks for weighing in and for explaining your rationale. Even (especially) having already made the decision, it's comforting to hear a qualified person endorsing that choice.

Sincerely, Jonathan