SHA-1 and Git (was Re: [tahoe-dev] Tahoe-LAFS key management, part 2: Tahoe-LAFS is like encrypted git)

Ben Laurie ben at links.org
Tue Aug 25 07:44:57 EDT 2009


Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Yet another reason why you always should make the crypto algorithms you
> use pluggable in any system -- you *will* have to replace them some day.

In order to roll out a new crypto algorithm, you have to roll out new
software. So, why is anything needed for "pluggability" beyond versioning?

It seems to me protocol designers get all excited about this because
they want to design the protocol once and be done with it. But software
authors are generally content to worry about the new algorithm when they
need to switch to it - and since they're going to have to update their
software anyway and get everyone to install the new version, why should
they worry any sooner?

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html           http://www.links.org/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com



More information about the cryptography mailing list