Re: SHA1 collisions found
- From
- David Lang <david@lang.hm>
- Date
- Feb 24, 2017, 17:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <nycvar.QRO.7.75.62.1702240943540.6590@qynat-yncgbc>
- In-Reply-To
- <xmqq60jz5wbm.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
On Fri, 24 Feb 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 10 quoted lines
> *1* In the above toy example, length being 40 vs 64 is used as a > sign between SHA-1 and the new hash, and careful readers may > wonder if we should use sha-3,20769079d22... or something like > that that more explicity identifies what hash is used, so that > we can pick a hash whose length is 64 when we transition again. > > I personally do not think such a prefix is necessary during the > first transition; we will likely to adopt a new hash again, and > at that point that third one can have a prefix to differenciate > it from the second one.
as the saying goes "in computer science the interesting numbers are 0, 1, and many", does it really simplify things much to support 2 hashes vs supporting more so that this issue doesn't have to be revisited? (other than selecting new hashes over time)
David Lang