11–20 of 369 posts
Q: Does this make it even more urgent for git to move to a different hash?
-> https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9392365/how-would-git-ha...
(This does not answer your question, but is still interesting.)
Quick question about the "What should I do" section. It says " use instead SHA-256 ". Isn't SHA-512 both better and faster on modern hardware?
People tend to be conservative in making changes for stuff like this, and don't do so until forced.
Quick question about the "What should I do" section. It says " use instead SHA-256 ". Isn't SHA-512 both better and faster on modern hardware?
Quick question about the "What should I do" section. It says " use instead SHA-256 ". Isn't SHA-512 both better and faster on modern hardware?
On 64-bit capable processors SHA-512 has a slight performance gain over SHA-256, but only on larger inputs. However, the digest of SHA-512 is twice the size, so what you gain in processing time, you loose in storage.
Quick question about the "What should I do" section. It says " use instead SHA-256 ". Isn't SHA-512 both better and faster on modern hardware?
Latacora says to use SHA-2. If you can get away with it, SHA-512/256 instead of SHA-256. But they're all SHA-2 family hash functions.
https://latacora.micro.blog/2018/04/03/cryptographic-right-a...
No need to bikeshed this. But if you must: SHA-512/256 > SHA-384 > SHA-512 = SHA-256
If you're wondering, "Why is SHA-384 better than SHA-512 and SHA-256?" the answer is the same reason why SHA-512/256 is the most preferred option: https://blog.skullsecurity.org/2012/everything-you-need-to-k...
Additionally, the Intel SHA extensions target SHA1 and SHA-256 (but not SHA-512), which makes SHA-256 faster than SHA-512 on newer processors.
Isn't crypto fun?
Quick question about the "What should I do" section. It says " use instead SHA-256 ". Isn't SHA-512 both better and faster on modern hardware?
Quick question about the "What should I do" section. It says " use instead SHA-256 ". Isn't SHA-512 both better and faster on modern hardware?
Quick question about the "What should I do" section. It says " use instead SHA-256 ". Isn't SHA-512 both better and faster on modern hardware?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It adds to the weight of the argument, but there isn't a big issue. This article ( https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-on-sha-1-and-gi... ) and the linked email ( https://marc.info/?l=git&m=148787047422954 ) both seem to still apply.
Further details as to why Torvalds is not concerned: From the email... "I haven't seen the attack yet, but git doesn't actually just hash the data, it does prepend a type/length field to it. That usually tends to make collision attacks much harder, because you either have to make the resulting size the same too, or you have to be able to also edit the size field in the header." [...] "I haven't seen the attack detail…
But it sounds as if the cost of changing the hash algorithm is high. What are the impacts of this change? How many things would break if git just changed the algorithm with each new release? Does git assume that the hash algorithm is statically given to be SHA-1 or are there qualifiers on which algorithm is enabled/permitted/configured?