summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/t/t4100
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorLibravatar Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>2018-08-04 01:52:47 -0700
committerLibravatar Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>2018-08-07 07:40:43 -0700
commit0ed8d8da374f648764758f13038ca93af87ab800 (patch)
treedfc6bfc90c19dace8f5d84092a3f06dc14a5f734 /t/t4100
parentdoc hash-function-transition: note the lack of a changelog (diff)
downloadtgif-0ed8d8da374f648764758f13038ca93af87ab800.tar.xz
doc hash-function-transition: pick SHA-256 as NewHash
From a security perspective, it seems that SHA-256, BLAKE2, SHA3-256, K12, and so on are all believed to have similar security properties. All are good options from a security point of view. SHA-256 has a number of advantages: * It has been around for a while, is widely used, and is supported by just about every single crypto library (OpenSSL, mbedTLS, CryptoNG, SecureTransport, etc). * When you compare against SHA1DC, most vectorized SHA-256 implementations are indeed faster, even without acceleration. * If we're doing signatures with OpenPGP (or even, I suppose, CMS), we're going to be using SHA-2, so it doesn't make sense to have our security depend on two separate algorithms when either one of them alone could break the security when we could just depend on one. So SHA-256 it is. Update the hash-function-transition design doc to say so. After this patch, there are no remaining instances of the string "NewHash", except for an unrelated use from 2008 as a variable name in t/t9700/test.pl. Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> Acked-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> Acked-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> Acked-by: Dan Shumow <danshu@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Diffstat (limited to 't/t4100')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions