Ok, there we go: https://github.com/mono/mono/pull/2350 <https://github.com/mono/mono/pull/2350>
- Alex > Am 15.12.2015 um 20:37 schrieb Sebastien Pouliot > <sebastien.poul...@gmail.com>: > > Hey, > > There should not be any issues changing the default to SHA1, that was an > already tested configuration. However a change to SHA256 would require some > testing, as some constants might be missing (or did not even exists back in > 2003 ;-). > > Sebastien > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Eric Lawrence <bay...@gmail.com > <mailto:bay...@gmail.com>> wrote: > As far as I know, all systems that support MD5 Authenticode signatures also > support SHA1 signatures, so breakage from this change seems quite unlikely. > > (Alas, this is not true of SHA256, which is only supported on modern versions > of Windows, and not presently supported by signcode.exe at all). > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Alexander Köplinger > <alexander.koeplin...@xamarin.com <mailto:alexander.koeplin...@xamarin.com>> > wrote: > I like it. Does changing the default have any backwards compatibility issues? > > Looks like the default comes from > https://github.com/mono/mono/blob/b7a308f660de8174b64697a422abfc7315d07b8c/mcs/class/Mono.Security/Mono.Security.Authenticode/AuthenticodeFormatter.cs#L80 > > <https://github.com/mono/mono/blob/b7a308f660de8174b64697a422abfc7315d07b8c/mcs/class/Mono.Security/Mono.Security.Authenticode/AuthenticodeFormatter.cs#L80> > so we’d need to decide if we should change it there or make a targeted fix > just for signcode. > > - Alex > >> Am 15.12.2015 um 20:00 schrieb Eric Lawrence <bay...@gmail.com >> <mailto:bay...@gmail.com>>: >> >> (resend, as Miguel suggested I should join the list) >> >> Today, the signcode application distributed with Mono defaults to using MD5 >> for Authenticode signing. This has resulted in vulnerable signatures on at >> least two broadly distributed projects (CoPilot and WordPress Desktop; see >> http://textslashplain.com/2015/12/15/hashes-and-code-signing/ >> <http://textslashplain.com/2015/12/15/hashes-and-code-signing/>). >> >> MD5 signatures are dangerous because the collision attacks against MD5 get >> better and cheaper with each passing day, and any MD5 signature is >> vulnerable to abuse for the lifetime of the signing certificate—the package >> WordPress signed last week could be exploited until 11/21/2018 unless >> Automattic is willing to revoke their signing certificate before that time >> (costly). >> >> SHA1 is considerably stronger than MD5 and signcode already supports it; it >> just needs to be made default. The command line argument (-a md5) could be >> used for anyone that really needs an MD5 signature for any reason. >> >> Thanks for your consideration! >> >> -Eric Lawrence >> _______________________________________________ >> Mono-devel-list mailing list >> Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com <mailto:Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com> >> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list >> <http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list> > > > > > -- > Eric Lawrence > Bayden Systems > http://www.bayden.com <http://www.bayden.com/> > _______________________________________________ > Mono-devel-list mailing list > Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com <mailto:Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list > <http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list> > >
_______________________________________________ Mono-devel-list mailing list Mono-devel-list@lists.ximian.com http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
