lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Kernel SCM saga..
From
Date
>>>>> "DL" == David Lang <dlang@digitalinsight.com> writes:

DL> just wanted to point out that recent news shows that sha1 isn't as
DL> good as it was thought to be (far easier to deliberatly create
DL> collisions then it should be)

I suspect there is no need to do so...

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504090902170.1267@ppc970.osdl.org>
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel SCM saga..
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 09:16:22 -0700 (PDT)

...

Linus

(*) yeah, yeah, I know about the current theoretical case, and I don't
care. Not only is it theoretical, the way my objects are packed you'd have
to not just generate the same SHA1 for it, it would have to _also_ still
be a valid zlib object _and_ get the header to match the "type + length"
of object part. IOW, the object validity checks are actually even stricter
than just "sha1 matches".

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-10 11:45    [W:0.271 / U:0.464 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site