You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Neither MD5 nor SHA1 are recommended anymore for general use as cryptographic hash functions. IIUC, the vulnerabilities in both cases are (so far) only with collisions, not preimages, which I think means some or all of these uses are still ok—but "I think" is not something I like to rely on when it comes to crypto.
I propose that:
We should document the security considerations applicable to each use of cryptographic hash functions.
If MD5 or SHA1 are insecure in any of these applications, we should replace them with better hash functions. Conveniently, racket/basenow providessha256-bytes and sha254-bytes.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
A few places in the web server use cryptographic hash functions, specifically MD5 and SHA1:
md5-stuffer
HMAC-SHA1
andHMAC-SHA1-stuffer
fromweb-server/stuffers/hmac-sha1
web-server/http/id-cookie
are built on HMAC-SHA1.Neither MD5 nor SHA1 are recommended anymore for general use as cryptographic hash functions. IIUC, the vulnerabilities in both cases are (so far) only with collisions, not preimages, which I think means some or all of these uses are still ok—but "I think" is not something I like to rely on when it comes to crypto.
I propose that:
racket/base
now providessha256-bytes
andsha254-bytes
.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: