Re:Linus on Git and SHA-1
by nickpsecurity on Sunday February 26, 2017 @10:27AM
(#13737628)
It's equivalent to the other comments. The others just have more facts to back it up & should've probably been the original. If The reason it's equivalent is:
1. Saw a known issue that cryptographers and security people were warning him about.
2. Alternatives existed that didn't have that issue. People were pushing on it.
3. Ignored all that to tell them it wasn't a problem, the issue could never have real-world consequences, and he wasn't interested in fixes.
In practice, that means he didn't take it seriously. He also made sure it wouldn't get fixed by letting people know he wasn't making a change to it. One more example in a long line of them where Linus doesn't give a shit about security enough to apply known, good practices.
1. Saw a known issue that cryptographers and security people were warning him about.
2. Alternatives existed that didn't have that issue. People were pushing on it.
3. Ignored all that to tell them it wasn't a problem, the issue could never have real-world consequences, and he wasn't interested in fixes.
In practice, that means he didn't take it seriously. He also made sure it wouldn't get fixed by letting people know he wasn't making a change to it. One more example in a long line of them where Linus doesn't give a shit about security enough to apply known, good practices.