On Wednesday, June 17, 2015 at 4:24:21 PM UTC-7, sri wrote: > > rather than hardwiring SHA1 into everything -- and in particular having it >> be >> the only choice for signed cookies and session keys -- which makes me a >> bit nervous >> seeing as we're really all supposed to be using SHA256 by now. >> > > Since when is HMAC-SHA1 a problem? Did i miss any new research >
well, this came out today <http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/10/sha1-crypto-algorithm-securing-internet-could-break-by-years-end/>, though I'll grant it's only a somewhat more dire version of what Bruce Schneier was saying 4 years ago <https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/10/when_will_we_se.html>, and yes I get that HMAC is different (and maybe even HMAC-MD5 is still safe even if I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it 10 years from now), but you do have a number of places using unadorned SHA1 (including one where I'm really *not* sure why you're *not* using HMAC see DefaultHelpers::_csrf_token) and it seems to me if you genericize (use "...sha_sum" everywhere, point it to whatever is best-practice these days, let overly paranoid folks like me bump it up to SHA3 in the config file if we want) then you're basically done with this forever (ha ha...) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mojolicious" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
