LWN.net Logo

making the logs temper evident through git like hash chains

making the logs temper evident through git like hash chains

Posted Nov 19, 2011 4:40 UTC (Sat) by nevyn (subscriber, #33129)
In reply to: making the logs temper evident through git like hash chains by Cyberax
Parent article: The Journal - a proposed syslog replacement

From: blog.valerieaurora.org talking about CAS and compare by hash...

Finally, in a vain attempt to forestall the inevitable flame wars, I will point out that my objections do not apply to systems in which the hash address space is shared only with trusted users. In other words, hash-based source control is for the most part fine sticking with SHA-1 and could indeed use a cheaper hash like MD5 without any practical trouble
From: kernel trap git archive on the first discussion about git only using sha1, Linus explains:
As I explained early on [...], the _security_ of git actually depends on not cryptographic hashes, but simply on everybody being able to secure their own _private_ repository.
Then there was another discussion, where other people said the same things. Git's use of hashes as a CAS doesn't make it secure, doing the same thing for log file lines will not make them secure/trustable/whatever either.


(Log in to post comments)

making the logs temper evident through git like hash chains

Posted Nov 20, 2011 3:12 UTC (Sun) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]

SHA1 has been weakened, but many other hash functions have not. Given that security is the whole point, I'm sure that Lennart will use a newer hash.

making the logs temper evident through git like hash chains

Posted Nov 20, 2011 19:19 UTC (Sun) by nevyn (subscriber, #33129) [Link]

I think you missed the point ... git and journald can happily use SHA-1 because it adds no security at all. git gets a bunch of other useful features out of using hashes, AFAICS it's just a waste for journald.

making the logs temper evident through git like hash chains

Posted Nov 21, 2011 23:52 UTC (Mon) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]

> I think you missed the point ... git and journald can happily use SHA-1
> because it adds no security at all

Er, I think perhaps it is you who is missing the point. TFA says:

> Each entry authenticates all previous ones. If the top-most hash is
> regularly saved to a secure write-only location, the full chain is
> authenticated by it. Manipulations by the attacker can hence easily be
> detected.

The point is to get security, not to "happily use SHA-1."

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds