nanog mailing list archives

Re: SHA1 collisions proven possisble


From: Richard Hesse <richard.hesse () weebly com>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:26:28 -0800

Git prefixes blobs with its own data. You're not going to break git with a
SHA-1 binary collision. However, svn is very vulnerable to breaking.

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 3:11 PM, J. Hellenthal <jhellenthal () dataix net>
wrote:

It's actually pretty serious in Git and the banking markets where there is
high usage of sha1. Considering the wide adoption of Git, this is a pretty
serious issue that will only become worse ten-fold over the years. Visible
abuse will not be near as widely seen as the initial shattering but
escalate over much longer periods.

Take it serious ? Why wouldn't you !?

--
 Onward!,
 Jason Hellenthal,
 Systems & Network Admin,
 Mobile: 0x9CA0BD58,
 JJH48-ARIN

On Feb 23, 2017, at 16:40, Ricky Beam <jfbeam () gmail com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:03:34 -0500, Patrick W. Gilmore <
patrick () ianai net> wrote:
More seriously: The attack (or at least as much as we can glean from the
blog post) cannot find a collision (file with same hash) from an arbitrary
file. The attack creates two files which have the same hash, which is
scary, but not as bad as it could be.

Exactly. This is just more sky-is-falling nonsense. Of course collisions
exist. They occur in every hash function. It's only marginally noteworthy
when someone finds a collision. It's neat the Google has found a way to
generate a pair of files with the same hash -- at colossal computational
cost! However this in no way invalidates SHA-1 or documents signed by
SHA-1. You still cannot take an existing document, modify it in a
meaningful way, and keep the same hash.

[Nor can you generate a blob to match an arbitrary hash (which would be
death of all bittorrent)]



Current thread: