News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Linus' reply on Git and SHA-1 collision by btym on Thursday February 23, 2017 @09:55PM (#13720508)
> It is simply NOT TRUE that you can generate an object that looks halfway sane and still gets you the sha1 you want

This was his point, and it's still true. Generating a specific SHA-1 hash is still not feasible.

Re:Linus' reply on Git and SHA-1 collision by euyyn on Friday February 24, 2017 @01:18AM (#13721493)
It's not so inconceivable, after seeing the PDF collision, to contribute to another project a commit whose hash has a collision with another malicious commit you keep up your sleeve. Not saying it's easy, but now it's on the horizon.
Re:Linus' reply on Git and SHA-1 collision by otabdeveloper on Friday February 24, 2017 @02:25AM (#13721740)
> Not saying it's easy, but now it's on the horizon.

Not really. It's not a preimage attack. They spent several hundred dollars to find two random byte strings with the same SHA1 hash. There's still no way to SHA1-collide a specific byte string instead of random junk.

Re:Linus' reply on Git and SHA-1 collision by victorNicollet on Friday February 24, 2017 @06:37AM (#13722741)
This is exactly what euyyn is saying: create two files with the same SHA1 (by adding bytes of gibberish to an unused section), commit one to the repository, and now you have an collision available.
Re:Linus' reply on Git and SHA-1 collision by mi100hael on Friday February 24, 2017 @11:01AM (#13724797)
That's not how git uses hashes. In that scenario, there would still be a diff and hence git would recognize the files were different.