Hello, Does this mean that it is not so hard to adapt SHA algorithm to a better one ?:D
DRH suspected that it would be hard :D :D :D Of course I don't agree with DRH ; I will never agree with him about security discuss either ... :-| Thank to "sgbeal". :-) Best Regards K. De : Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> À : Fossil SCM user's discussion <fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org> Envoyé le : Dimanche 26 février 2017 21h58 Objet : Re: [fossil-users] Google Security Blog: Announcing the first SHA1 collision On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: And in any event, I don't think centralization is a factor here. Fossil is better positioned than Git or Mercurial to transition to a different hash algorithm because the Fossil implementation uses a relational database as its backing store. Git and Hg, in contrast, both use bespoke pile-of-files database formats which, I suspect, will be more difficult to adapt. just FYI, Linus' own words on the topic, posted yesterday: https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LinusTorvalds/posts/7tp2gYWQugL -- ----- stephan beal http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/"Freedom is sloppy. But since tyranny's the only guaranteed byproduct of those who insist on a perfect world, freedom will have to do." -- Bigby Wolf _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users