From: Jonathan Nieder <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> Cc: "Stefan Beller" <email@example.com>, "Junio C Hamano" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Phillip Wood" <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 15:45:24 -0700 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20170606224524.GC21733@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.126.96.36.1996070008440.171564@virtualbox> 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-06-06 22:45 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2017-05-31 10:42 [PATCH 0/3] Add regression tests for recent rebase -i fixes Phillip Wood 2017-05-31 10:42 ` [PATCH 1/3] rebase -i: Add test for reflog message Phillip Wood 2017-06-01 2:00 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-05-31 10:42 ` [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output Phillip Wood 2017-05-31 19:02 ` Phillip Wood 2017-06-01 1:59 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-01 12:56 ` Johannes Schindelin 2017-06-01 23:40 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-01 23:47 ` Stefan Beller 2017-06-02 12:47 ` pushing for a new hash, was " Johannes Schindelin 2017-06-02 17:54 ` Jonathan Nieder 2017-06-02 18:05 ` Jonathan Nieder 2017-06-02 20:29 ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 2017-06-15 10:38 ` Johannes Schindelin 2017-06-03 0:36 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-06 22:22 ` Johannes Schindelin 2017-06-06 22:45 ` Jonathan Nieder [this message] 2017-06-07 1:09 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-07 2:18 ` [PATCH] t4005: modernize style and drop hard coded sha1 Stefan Beller 2017-06-07 17:39 ` Brandon Williams 2017-06-06 22:45 ` pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output Stefan Beller 2017-06-06 22:52 ` Jonathan Nieder 2017-06-07 0:34 ` Samuel Lijin 2017-06-07 14:47 ` Johannes Schindelin 2017-06-07 16:53 ` Stefan Beller 2017-06-07 10:47 ` Phillip Wood 2017-06-09 16:39 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-14 10:18 ` Phillip Wood 2017-06-14 12:51 ` Johannes Schindelin 2017-05-31 10:42 ` [PATCH 3/3] rebase: Add tests for console output with conflicting stash Phillip Wood 2017-06-14 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Add regression tests for rectent rebase -i fixes Phillip Wood 2017-06-14 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] rebase -i: Add test for reflog message Phillip Wood 2017-06-14 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] rebase: Add regression tests for console output Phillip Wood 2017-06-14 10:24 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] rebase: Add more " Phillip Wood 2017-06-14 20:35 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] Add regression tests for rectent rebase -i fixes Johannes Schindelin 2017-06-15 23:05 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-15 23:23 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-15 23:29 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-16 13:49 ` Johannes Schindelin 2017-06-16 18:43 ` Johannes Sixt 2017-06-16 21:05 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-19 19:45 ` Johannes Sixt 2017-06-19 20:02 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-19 9:49 ` Phillip Wood 2017-06-19 15:45 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-19 9:52 ` Phillip Wood 2017-06-19 17:56 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] Add regression tests for recent " Phillip Wood 2017-06-19 17:56 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] sequencer: print autostash messages to stderr Phillip Wood 2017-06-19 17:56 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] rebase -i: Add test for reflog message Phillip Wood 2017-06-19 17:56 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] rebase: Add regression tests for console output Phillip Wood 2017-06-19 17:56 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] rebase: Add more " Phillip Wood 2017-06-23 4:17 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] Add regression tests for recent rebase -i fixes Junio C Hamano 2017-06-23 5:07 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-23 9:53 ` Phillip Wood 2017-06-23 17:03 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-23 18:53 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-26 9:17 ` Phillip Wood 2017-06-23 19:01 ` Junio C Hamano 2017-06-26 9:23 ` Phillip Wood
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20170606224524.GC21733@aiede.mtv.corp.google.com \ --email@example.com \ --cc=Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --subject='Re: pushing for a new hash, was Re: [PATCH 2/3] rebase: Add tests for console output' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox: https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).