netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC v1 2/3] ipv6: move from sha1 to blake2s in address calculation

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:29:39 +0100
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
Cc:     Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>,
        "open list:BPF JIT for MIPS (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" 
        <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Erik Kline <ek@...gle.com>,
        Fernando Gont <fgont@...networks.com>,
        Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@...gle.com>,
        hideaki.yoshifuji@...aclelinux.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v1 2/3] ipv6: move from sha1 to blake2s in address calculation

On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 13:22, Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/13/22, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > The question is not whether but when we can/will change this.
> >
> > SHA-1 is broken and should be removed at *some* point, so unless the
> > feature itself is going to be obsolete, its implementation will need
> > to switch to a PRF that fulfils the requirements in RFC7217 once SHA-1
> > ceases to do so.
> >
> > And I should also point out that the current implementation does not
> > even use SHA-1 correctly, as it omits the finalization step. This may
> > or may not matter in practice, but it deviates from crypto best
> > practices, as well as from RFC7217
> >
> > I already pointed out to Jason (in private) that the PRF does not need
> > to be based on a cryptographic hash, so as far as I can tell, siphash
> > would be a suitable candidate here as well, and I already switched the
> > TCP fastopen code to that in the past. But SHA-1 definitely has to go.
> >
>
> Correction: this should be a cryptographically secure.

Of course. I said it does not need to be based on a cryptographic *hash*.

> That's part of
> the point of moving away from SHA-1 of course. But fortunately,
> siphash *is*
> considered to be cryptographically secure. Whether you want blake2s's
> keyed mode or siphash doesn't really matter to me. I thought the
> former's API mapped a bit neater here.

Fair enough. This is not on a hot path anyway, so it doesn't really
matter performance wise.