Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi,

Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:

>>> Maybe we should call out a specific month (or even a longer period) during
>>> which we try to push toward that new hash function, and focus more on
>>> those tasks (and on critical bug fixes, if any) than anything else.
>>
>> Thanks for offering. ;-)
>
> Undoubtedly my lack of command of the English language is to blame for
> this misunderstanding.
>
> By no means did I try to indicate that I am ready to accept the
> responsibility of working toward a new hash dumped on me.

It was a joke.  More seriously, I do appreciate your questions to get
this discussion going.

[...]
> 3) the only person who could make that call is Junio

I strongly disagree with this.

> 4) we still have the problem that there is no cryptography expert among
> those who in the Git project are listened to

*shrug* I still don't know what you are suggesting here.  Are you
saying we should find a cryptography expert to pay?  Or do you have
other specific suggestions of how to attract them?

>> How did you get the impression that their opinion had no impact? We have
>> been getting feedback about the choice of hash function both on and off
>> list from a variety of people, some indisputably security experts.
>> Sometimes the best one can do is to just listen.
>
> I did get the impression by talking at length to a cryptography expert who
> successfully resisted any suggestions to get involved in the Git mailing
> list.

I know of other potential Git contributors that have resisted getting
involved in the Git mailing list, too.  I still don't know what you
are suggesting here.  Forgive me for being dense.

> There were also accounts floating around on Twitter that a certain
> cryptography expert who dared to mention already back in 2005 how
> dangerous it would be to hardcode SHA-1 into Git was essentially shown the
> finger, and I cannot fault him for essentially saying "I told you so"
> publicly.

I think there is a concrete suggestion embedded here: when discussions
go in an unproductive direction, my usual practice has been to keep
away from them.  This means that to a casual observer there can appear
to be a consensus that doesn't really exist.  We need to do better
than that: when a prominent contributor like Linus and people newer to
the project are emphatically dismissing the security impact of using a
broken hash function, others in the project need to speak up to make
it clear that those are not the actual opinions of the project.

To put it another way: "The standard you walk past is the standard you
accept".  I have failed at this.

It is a very hard problem to solve, but it is worth solving.

> In my mind, it would have made sense to ask well-respected cryptographers
> about their opinions and then try to figure out a consensus among them (as
> opposed to what I saw so far, a lot of enthusastic talk by developers with
> little standing in the cryptography community, mostly revolving around
> hash size and speed as opposed to security). And then try to implement
> that consensus in Git. Given my recent success rate with SHA-1 related
> concerns, I am unfortunately not the person who can bring that about.
>
> But maybe you are.

I think you are being a bit dismissive of both the work done so far
and the value of your own work.

I am happy to solicit more input from security researchers, though,
and your suggestion to do so is good advice.

Thanks and hope that helps,
Jonathan



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]