On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 01:41:22PM +0100, Tomas Krizek wrote:
> On 02/22/2017 12:28 AM, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 05:23:07PM +0100, Standa Laznicka wrote:
> >> On 02/21/2017 04:24 PM, Tomas Krizek wrote:
> >>> On 02/21/2017 03:23 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> >>>> Standa Laznicka wrote:
> >>>>> Hello,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Since we're trying to make FreeIPA work in FIPS we got to the point
> >>>>> where we need to do something with MD5 fingerprints in the cert plugin.
> >>>>> Eventually we came to a realization that it'd be best to get rid of them
> >>>>> as a whole. These are counted by the framework and are not stored
> >>>>> anywhere. Note that alongside with these fingerprints SHA1 fingerprints
> >>>>> are also counted and those are there to stay.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The question for this ML is, then - is it OK to remove these or would
> >>>>> you rather have them replaced with SHA-256 alongside the SHA-1? MD5 is a
> >>>>> grandpa and I think it should go.
> >>>> I based the values displayed on what certutil displayed at the time (7
> >>>> years ago). I don't know that anyone uses these fingerprints. The
> >>>> OpenSSL equivalent doesn't include them by default.
> >>>>
> >>>> You may be able to deprecate fingerprints altogether.
> >>>>
> >>>> rob
> >>> I think it's useful to display the certificate's fingerprint. I'm in
> >>> favor of removing md5 and adding sha256 instead.
> >>>
> >> Rob, thank you for sharing the information of where the cert fingerprints
> >> are originated! `certutil` shipped with nss-3.27.0-1.3 currently displays
> >> SHA-256 and SHA1 fingerprints for certificates so I propose going that way
> >> too.
> >>
> > IMO we should remove MD5 and SHA-1, and add SHA-256.  But we should
> > also make no API stability guarantee w.r.t. the fingerprint
> > attributes, i.e. to allow us to move to newer digests in future (and
> > remove broken/no-longer-secure ones).  We should advise that if a
> > customer has a hard requirement on a particular digest that they
> > should compute it themselves from the certificate.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Fraser
> What is the motivation to remove SHA-1? Are there any attacks besides
> theoretical ones on SHA-1?
> 
> Do other libraries already deprecate SHA-1?
> 
Come to think of it, I was thinking about SHA-1 signatures (which
are completely forbidden in the public PKI nowadays).  But for
fingerprints it is not so bad (for now).

Thanks,
Fraser

-- 
Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to