>>>>> On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote: > This seems pretty hasty.
> First of all, SHA-256 should be safe for all intents and purposes, > and for the foreseeable future. This is nothing like Git's usage of > SHA-1, which was known to be on the way to brokenville for a long > time. I don't think there is a solid reason for deprecating it now. Hasty? The plan has been outlined already 7 years ago, in GLEP 59 [1]. IIUC, it is enough to keep the strongest checksum of a given set, namely SHA512 for SHA-2. The increase in security by keeping a second weaker checksum of the same family (i.e. SHA256) is negligible. So the only reason for keeping SHA256 was that old Portage versions didn't support SHA512. However, by now SHA512 is supported since more than 5 years, namely since Portage version 2.1.10.44 which went stable on the last arch in February 2012. I don't have a strong opinion if we should add SHA-3, but I don't think that it is urgently needed. Ulrich [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:59#Checksum_depreciation_timing
pgpS0JtE20Ogj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
