Re:Linus on Git and SHA-1
by tytso on Saturday February 25, 2017 @04:13PM
(#13733850)
That's not the plan. That was an idea that was thrown out if this was an emergency (it's handling different length hashes, and doing so that we don't have to force a flag day conversion which is hard), but once people realized that in fact, the sky was not following, the plan which Linus outlined in his G+ post was devised --- which does not involve truncating a 256-bit hash.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Can you please link me to "the plan" then? I have been trying to follow some of the ML discussion and that was the last plan I saw him put forth, e.g.:
By clicking "next in thread" in that very post you get Linus replying to himself with a non-truncating plan:
Thanks for the link.
Re: snark, I did hit "next in thread" but managed to skim over that in his response.
But again, thanks anyway.
(Note: this still sounds more like spitballing than "the plan", but at least it's a step in the right direction)
Can you link the new plan? I didn't see it described in his G+ post.
The G+ post was not meant to describe the plan, it was an overview of the situation for git users who aren't necessarily security experts.
The plan is outlined at https://marc.info/?l=git&m=148787163023435&w=2
Re:Linus on Git and SHA-1
by greglindahl on Saturday February 25, 2017 @04:23PM
(#13733916)
Do you have any insight into the sha-256 vs sha-512 choice?