Move from SHA1 to SHA256 #953

New Issue

2017-02-24T23:52:18+01:00

kewde commented

2017-02-24 23:52:18 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Recently the team at Google have found the first SHA1 collision,
the ECDSA signatures use SHA1 and most of the code for a switch to SHA256 is in the comments already.

https://security.googleblog.com/2017/02/announcing-first-sha1-collision.html

allow signing with SHA256 for people who want to experiment
make all signatures SHA256
disable support for SHA1 verification

Recently the team at Google have found the first SHA1 collision, the ECDSA signatures use SHA1 and most of the code for a switch to SHA256 is in the comments already. https://security.googleblog.com/2017/02/announcing-first-sha1-collision.html - [x] allow signing with SHA256 for people who want to experiment - [ ] make all signatures SHA256 - [ ] disable support for SHA1 verification

PeterSurda commented

2017-02-24 23:55:14 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitmessage/comments/5vt3la/sha1_and_bitmessage/

martinvahi commented

2017-03-09 03:40:23 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

A few related links:

http://www.shattered.io/

https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/hashpolicy.wiki

https://github.com/cr-marcstevens/sha1collisiondetection

A few related links: http://www.shattered.io/ https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/hashpolicy.wiki https://github.com/cr-marcstevens/sha1collisiondetection

g1itch commented

2017-03-11 14:36:24 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Wouldn't this potentially make it possible to use the bitcoin ASICs to spam bitmessage?

kewde commented

2017-03-11 15:03:10 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@g1itch I doubt it.
The ASICs operate under a very specific format that I doubt is applicable to BitMessage.

@g1itch I doubt it. The ASICs operate under a very specific format that I doubt is applicable to BitMessage.

PeterSurda commented

2017-03-11 15:07:44 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@g1itch Bitmessage uses double SHA512 for PoW, so no. The SHA1 -> SHA256 migration is only for sender authentication.

😕 1

kewde commented

2017-09-13 23:20:39 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Has there been any progress on this issue?

👍 1

martinvahi commented

2017-09-14 10:43:37 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Wouldn't this potentially make it possible to use the bitcoin ASICs to spam bitmessage?

The ASICs operate under a very specific format that I doubt is applicable to BitMessage.

If the ASIC's are implemented by using FPGAs, which might be the case to allow the same hardware, server park, to be reconfigured and reused for mining other cryptocoins after the Bitcoin "mine" has become "depleted enough", then the switch from one hash algorithm to another is not that big of an impediment for the server park owners.

> Wouldn't this potentially make it possible to use the bitcoin ASICs to spam bitmessage? > The ASICs operate under a very specific format that I doubt is applicable to BitMessage. If the ASIC's are implemented by using FPGAs, which might be the case to allow the same hardware, server park, to be reconfigured and reused for mining other cryptocoins after the Bitcoin "mine" has become "depleted enough", then the switch from one hash algorithm to another is not that big of an impediment for the server park owners.

PeterSurda commented

2017-09-14 10:49:52 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@kewde You can specify that you want to send SHA256-hashed messages by specifying

digestalg = sha256

in the bitmessagemain section of keys.dat. The other steps outlined will progress as new releases are made.

@kewde You can specify that you want to send SHA256-hashed messages by specifying digestalg = sha256 in the bitmessagemain section of keys.dat. The other steps outlined will progress as new releases are made.

PeterSurda commented

2019-11-16 10:42:13 +01:00

(Migrated from github.com)

This probably should be expedited, it's been waiting for too long. I've been running with digestalg = sha256 for a long time and haven't had issues.

This probably should be expedited, it's been waiting for too long. I've been running with `digestalg = sha256` for a long time and haven't had issues.

This repo is archived. You cannot comment on issues.