alt Hacker NewsExactly. But that's why I think SHA was a mistake. He should have gone with something like murmur to avoid all this frothing at the mouth.
Replies
Someone • yesterday at 7:43 PM
Linus, in 2005, couldn’t have gone for murmur, from 2008.
Was there “something like murmur” in 2005 that’s cryptographically better than SHA1?
➕ show 1 reply
bawolff • yesterday at 6:48 PM
If that was true, i doubt git would have switched to using the slower version of sha-1 that detects attacks.
huflungdung • yesterday at 6:43 PM
[dead]
kazinator • yesterday at 6:32 PM
Frothers gonna froth, though.
It was a mistake to assume a fixed algorithm in the repository format and client-server protocol. I remember being surprised when I learned about that choice, being familiar with cryptographic protocols and formats where the hash algorithm is usually a parameter that can vary for each concrete hash.