Thread

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

570 points · 536 comments · chmaynard

kpcyrd · 1790876562 · 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. kazinator · 1790879117 · focus · HN ↗
  The problem of a SH1 collision happening by coincidence is vanishingly low and theoretical.
  Nothing else matters.
  Git hashes are not supposed to be a security mechanism. If your basis for trusting that you have the right checkout is the git hash, in a situation where you have legitimate concern about untrusted parties manipulating remote repositories, then you're simply wrong.
  1. shakow · 1790880479 · focus · HN ↗
    > Git hashes are not supposed to be a security mechanism
    Probably a naive question, but why not kill two birds with one stone if it can be done for a reasonable cost?
    kazinator · 1790881021 · focus · HN ↗
    Because you're not killling two birds; you're not killing the security bird with a better content hash.
    A SHA-256 sum, though very good, only assures you with great confidence that you're looking at the same thing you looked at before, or that someone else is looking at elsewhere.
    It is not a digital signature, and we don't want digital signatures to serve the role of content hashes.
    Speaking of signatures, we have support for them in Git; you can use gpg to sign commits, and set it up to be done automatically.
    Nobody is going to fake your commit such that the fake has the same SH-1 hash and your GPG signature.
    The worry there is that the key holder (whether the legitimate one, or a malicious party who got a hold of the key) somehow does this: creates a new commit, signed with their key, which somehow has the same SH-1 as an existing signed commit. The git hash includes the GPG signature, so there is a significant layer of difficulty there which is likely harder than faking an unsigned SHA-256 commit.
    kpcyrd · 1790884044 · focus · HN ↗
    Please educate yourself what a merkle tree is. It's a well understood building block of various security systems, including certificate transparency (which explicitly uses sha256).
    You refer to PGP signed Git objects, but you also argue:
    > Git hashes are not supposed to be a security mechanism
    Guess what the Git PGP signature is signing.
    kazinator · 1790885624 · focus · HN ↗
    The GPG signature is not signing the git hash, if that's what you mean.
    The GPG signature signs some kind of hash calculated over the commit, minus the GPG header, which is thereby added.
    The git hash is then calculated over the whole thing. The git hash is on the outside, and not part of the signing.
    crote · 1790887884 · focus · HN ↗
    That doesn't make a difference: with sha1 a malicious change in content will still result in the same content hash, so the signature will still be valid, and the commit hash will still be the same.
    kazinator · 1790888369 · focus · HN ↗
    Only if the GPG signing process stupidly relies on the SHA-1 hash. I.e. if it takes an unsigned commit and signs only its SHA-1 hash and then creates a new commit with GPG headers. If that's how it works, that is massively stupid and can be fixed without forcing SHA-256 as a git hash. Just have the signing calculate its own digest for its own purposes.
    That digest can be the SHA-256; since the infrastructure is there for it, signing should use SHA-256 regardless of what hash is used by the repository for identifying and linking content.
    dwohnitmok · 1790905221 · focus · HN ↗
    > If that's how it works, that is massively stupid and can be fixed without forcing SHA-256 as a git hash.
    I don't think it's massively stupid. Unless you want to re-hash the entire Merkle tree structure to sign your commit, you basically have to trust the hashes in the Merkle tree (or have a separate parallel Merkle tree) at some point in what you sign, which means you do have to trust the SHA-1 hashes. Otherwise even with a cryptographic signature you can always spoof at least the git repo history (e.g. even if you try to directly hash the entire contents of the current commit).
    Re-hashing the entire Merkle tree structure seems prohibitively expensive to generate (even with a lot of caching) and pretty complicated for e.g. verifying a signature. Or you can do that incrementally, but then you're just generating a whole new parallel Merkle tree structure.
    Regardless, at the end of the day, you need to trust the integrity of the Merkle tree structure. And you can either do that by trusting the hashes of the current Merkle tree, or you have to completely recreate a new one with more trustworthy hashes, in which case why not just use better hashes in your original tree?
    kazinator · 1790910256 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.