Re: Git and SHA-1 security (again)

["brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2888 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 09:00:06AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> 
> On Sun, 17 Jul 2016, brian m. carlson wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 10:01:38AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> > > Out of curiosity: have you considered something like padding the SHA-1s
> > > with, say 0xa1, to the size of the new hash and using that padding to
> > > distinguish between old vs new hash?
> > 
> > I'm going to end up having to do something similar because of the issue
> > of submodules.  Submodules may still be SHA-1, while the main repo may
> > be a newer hash.  I was going to zero-pad, however.
> 
> I thought about zero-padding, but there are plenty of
> is_null_sha1()/is_null_oid() calls around. Of course, I assumed
> left-padding. But you may have thought of right-padding instead? That
> would make short name handling much easier, too.

I was going to right-pad.

> FWIW it never crossed my mind to allow different same-sized hash
> algorithms. So I never thought we'd need a way to distinguish, say,
> BLAKE2b-256 from SHA-256.
> 
> Is there a good reason to add the maintenance burden of several 256-bit
> hash algorithms, apart from speed (which in my mind should decide which
> one to use, always, rather than letting the user choose)? It would also
> complicate transport even further, let alone subtree merges from
> differently-hashed repositories.

There are really three candidates:

* SHA-256 (the SHA-2 algorithm): While this looks good right now,
  cryptanalysis is advancing.  This is not a good choice for a long-term
  solution.
* SHA3-256 (the SHA-3 algorithm): This is the conservative choice.  It's
  also faster than SHA-256 on 64-bit systems.  It has a very
  conservative security margin and is a good long-term choice.
* BLAKE2b-256: This is the blisteringly fast choice.  It outperforms
  SHA-1 and even MD5 on 64-bit systems.  This algorithm was designed so
  that nobody would have a reason to use an insecure algorithm.  It will
  probably be secure for some time, but maybe not as long as SHA3-256.

I'm only considering 256-bit hashes, because anything longer won't fit
on an 80-column terminal in hex form.

The reason I had considered implementing both SHA3-256 and BLAKE2b-256
is that I want there to be no reason not to upgrade.  People who need a
FIPS-approved algorithm or want a long-term, conservative choice should
use SHA3-256.  People who want even better performance than current Git
would use BLAKE2b-256.

Performance comparison (my implementations):
SHA-1:     437 MiB/s
SHA-256:   196 MiB/s
SHA3-256:  273 MiB/s
BLAKE2b:   649 MiB/s

I hadn't thought about subtree merges, though.
-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
+1 832 623 2791 | https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]