[Standards] SHA-1 use in XMPP

Dave Cridland dave at cridland.net
Thu Jun 22 19:35:17 UTC 2017


On 22 Jun 2017 19:10, "Evgeny Khramtsov" <xramtsov at gmail.com> wrote:

Thu, 22 Jun 2017 17:13:08 +0100
Dave Cridland <dave at cridland.net> wrote:

> Well, MD5 is brute-forceable now - you can clock up a lot of them per
> second on a stolen AWS account.
>
> The advice I'm hearing is that SHA-1 will be in range within a couple
> of years at the current rate of weakening.

Well, yes, there also reverse SHA1 tables exist [1] which make it
trivial to reverse short passwords, but all this has nothing in common
with SHA1 collisions, as far as I know.


I think I (more or less) said at the beginning of this year that the sky
was absolutely not falling. But SHA-1 is showing its first signs of
weakness, so it's prudent to start planning a strategy for moving along to
SHA-256 or something.

I agree with you that we can move at whatever speed feels most comfortable
- there are no dragons breathing down the backs of our necks on this. As I
say, we have, it seems, a couple of years.


[1] https://sha1.gromweb.com
_______________________________________________
Standards mailing list
Info: https://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/standards
Unsubscribe: Standards-unsubscribe at xmpp.org
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20170622/a5a5c6ea/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list