Hacker News Reader

Hi hannob, I'll re-check the classifications. Pretty sure you're right about the hmac-sha1 being still ok. Wrt oakley 14 and umac64 (and others) I'll try to add more detailed justifications. Thanks for your comment!

View on HN

It's important to note that "HMAC-SHA-1" is an entirely different construction compared to SHA-1. It is a HMAC that happens to use SHA-1 internally, and it uses it in a way that means it does not yet share weaknesses with SHA-1 as a hash.

Of course, if you are writing something today, you should lean towards HMAC-SHA-256 or 512 as an extra buffer, but choosing to avoid HMAC-SHA-1 because it says "SHA-1" is not a valid reason.

The site also seems to flag RSA host keys. Using SHA1 in this case shouldn't be a security issue since the hash is calculated as SHA1(SHA2(x)) and you would need to break SHA2 as well. [1]

[1] - https://stribika.github.io/2015/01/04/secure-secure-shell.ht...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com