Fossil SCM
Fix a typo in the hashpolicy.wiki document.
Commit
3b363b301fd98e5d52bb81e9655fafb8b5cc8c062798583860a714da9cf9d107
Parent
9360b66a67086d6…
1 file changed
+2
-2
+2
-2
| --- www/hashpolicy.wiki | ||
| +++ www/hashpolicy.wiki | ||
| @@ -51,15 +51,15 @@ | ||
| 51 | 51 | The Hardened SHA1 algorithm automatically detects when the artifact |
| 52 | 52 | being hashed is specifically designed to exploit the known weaknesses |
| 53 | 53 | in the SHA1 algorithm, and when it detects such an attack it changes |
| 54 | 54 | the hash algorithm (by increasing the number of rounds in the compression |
| 55 | 55 | function) to make the algorithm secure again. If the attack detection |
| 56 | -gets a false possible, that means that Hardened SHA1 will get a different | |
| 56 | +gets a false-positive, that means that Hardened SHA1 will get a different | |
| 57 | 57 | answer than the standard FIPS PUB 180-4 SHA1, but the creators of |
| 58 | 58 | Hardened SHA1 (see the second paper |
| 59 | 59 | [[https://marc-stevens.nl/research/papers/C13-S.pdf|2]]) |
| 60 | -report that the probability of a false positive is vanishingly small - | |
| 60 | +report that the probability of a false-positive is vanishingly small - | |
| 61 | 61 | less than 1 false positive out of 10<sup><font size=1>27</font></sup> |
| 62 | 62 | hashes. |
| 63 | 63 | |
| 64 | 64 | Hardened SHA1 is slower (and a lot bigger) but Fossil does not do that |
| 65 | 65 | much hashing, so performance is not really an issue. |
| 66 | 66 |
| --- www/hashpolicy.wiki | |
| +++ www/hashpolicy.wiki | |
| @@ -51,15 +51,15 @@ | |
| 51 | The Hardened SHA1 algorithm automatically detects when the artifact |
| 52 | being hashed is specifically designed to exploit the known weaknesses |
| 53 | in the SHA1 algorithm, and when it detects such an attack it changes |
| 54 | the hash algorithm (by increasing the number of rounds in the compression |
| 55 | function) to make the algorithm secure again. If the attack detection |
| 56 | gets a false possible, that means that Hardened SHA1 will get a different |
| 57 | answer than the standard FIPS PUB 180-4 SHA1, but the creators of |
| 58 | Hardened SHA1 (see the second paper |
| 59 | [[https://marc-stevens.nl/research/papers/C13-S.pdf|2]]) |
| 60 | report that the probability of a false positive is vanishingly small - |
| 61 | less than 1 false positive out of 10<sup><font size=1>27</font></sup> |
| 62 | hashes. |
| 63 | |
| 64 | Hardened SHA1 is slower (and a lot bigger) but Fossil does not do that |
| 65 | much hashing, so performance is not really an issue. |
| 66 |
| --- www/hashpolicy.wiki | |
| +++ www/hashpolicy.wiki | |
| @@ -51,15 +51,15 @@ | |
| 51 | The Hardened SHA1 algorithm automatically detects when the artifact |
| 52 | being hashed is specifically designed to exploit the known weaknesses |
| 53 | in the SHA1 algorithm, and when it detects such an attack it changes |
| 54 | the hash algorithm (by increasing the number of rounds in the compression |
| 55 | function) to make the algorithm secure again. If the attack detection |
| 56 | gets a false-positive, that means that Hardened SHA1 will get a different |
| 57 | answer than the standard FIPS PUB 180-4 SHA1, but the creators of |
| 58 | Hardened SHA1 (see the second paper |
| 59 | [[https://marc-stevens.nl/research/papers/C13-S.pdf|2]]) |
| 60 | report that the probability of a false-positive is vanishingly small - |
| 61 | less than 1 false positive out of 10<sup><font size=1>27</font></sup> |
| 62 | hashes. |
| 63 | |
| 64 | Hardened SHA1 is slower (and a lot bigger) but Fossil does not do that |
| 65 | much hashing, so performance is not really an issue. |
| 66 |