On 9/15/15, Warren Young <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is more likely to detect accidental corruption than deliberate >> corruption. > > I thought that’s what the MD5 bits were for. >
MD5 is 128 bytes versus 160 for SHA1. That's why I picked SHA1. Tell me: suppose tomorrow somebody publishes a trivial preimage attack against SHA1 - a program that will generate a file that has any SHA1 you want. (That's unlikely. No such program exists for even things like MD4. But suppose.) What attacks could you mount against Fossil using such a tool? To put it another way, what problem would you solve by changing Fossil to use the latest wizbang cryptographic hash function? -- D. Richard Hipp [email protected] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
