Hacker News Reader

If you rely on the commit SHA-1 as a integrity verification it's your problem. Git was never intended to be used as an integrity check.

View on HN

Git was maybe never intended to be used as an integrity check, but SHA hashes definitely were and are.

And if git provides a cryptographic hash over the content, I don't see why it shouldn't be used to verify the integrity of the checked-out content.

The reason why not is very simple: the SHA-1 algorithm was chosen because it made it practically impossible for two commits to have the same hash, not on the assumption that it would remain forever immune to collision attacks.

A vulnerability can be found in a hash algorithm at any time, whereas changing git's hashing algorithm is inevitably a slow process. IMO, if you want to ensure that someone gets an exact set of files, zip it up and sign the archive with the algorithm of your choice. It's not necessarily going to be practical to change git's signing algorithm every time a security issue is found.

I think perhaps you used the wrong words there. The hash is an integrity check but it was never intended as a security check.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com