‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Git 3.0's upcoming SHA-256 default will be a costly mistake

570 points · 536 comments · chmaynard

  1. kpcyrd · · focus · HN ↗
    This article is full of mistakes and misleading claims:

    1) It's claiming SHA1 insecurity is theoretical, while SHAttered from 2017 was specifically a pratical proof of concept. The only reason Git wasn't affected, is because they didn't bother bruteforcing a git-blob prefix.

    2) It's claiming collision attacks don't matter, only second-preimage attacks do. This is incorrect, collision attacks are enough for code-smuggling problems, when two repositories are on the same git commit (verified by the full commit hash), yet contain different code in their git checkout.

    3) The Linus quote "The real security is in distribution" is arguing that "git's content-addressed system should not be used to address content". It's arguing that, in case of curl|sh, you shouldn't use a sha256sum-gate to pin the content to something you've reviewed, you should instead ensure curl is fetching from an https server.

    1. schacon · · focus · HN ↗
      1) I link to the SHAttered paper, as well as Shambles. Git projects were not affected because it is an inefficient attack vector. I say it's impractical to exploit, which I think everyone agrees with.

      2) I specifically argue that even if both attacks were practical and cheap, it's still not the problem we should be focusing on.

      3) Have you read this email (that I linked to)? It is almost the same general message (20 years ago) that this blog post is. It literally goes though a theoretical object replacement attack and how dumb this scenario is and so SHA-1 is fine.

      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lore.kernel.org&#x2F;git&#x2F;Pine.LNX.4.58.0504291221250.18901@ppc970.osdl.org&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;lore.kernel.org&#x2F;git&#x2F;Pine.LNX.4.58.0504291221250.1890...

      1. bawolff · · focus · HN ↗
        &gt; 1) I link to the SHAttered paper, as well as Shambles. Git projects were not affected because it is an inefficient attack vector. I say it&#x27;s impractical to exploit, which I think everyone agrees with.

        It seems unlikely it will stay that way forever. Typically attacks get more efficient over time as researchers find improvements, not to mention computers getting better.

        In 2015 it was estimated to cost $100,000, now the estimate is down to $10,000. Where will it be in 2035?

        1. schacon · · focus · HN ↗
          I specifically argue that it doesn&#x27;t matter if it&#x27;s $1 and base my argument and solution around that. So it&#x27;s irrelevant where it is in 2035.
          1. bawolff · · focus · HN ↗
            You still mentioned the (1) part, which is what i object to. I agree its not fatal to your argument.
Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.