this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2026
88 points (92.3% liked)
Programming
28764 readers
452 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Which are? I'm not joking, "GitHub broken" and "Google has issues" are not arguments against a better encryption default.
The submodule argument is transitional at best.
As for the pro side (note that this is my opinion, I'm not deeply involved in the discussion - and with not deeply I mean "not at all"):
The case the author aggressively ridiculed ("I don't use GPG to trust, I trust the GitHub authentication!) is one that anyone would have if they'd want to stay safe from centralized systems.
Another is upstream availability: once an algorithm is identified as broken (no matter how small) usage drops rapidly - there's a reason why no one uses md5 anymore although it "would be fine" for purely collision mitigation.
And then there the simple fact that the integrity hash is a security feature, not purely anti collision (as the author also describes). Just because they (nor I!) can't see an attack vector at the moment doesn't make this less of an issue.
In short: it's the other way around: you'd need way stronger arguments than "there will be a transition pain" to knowingly compromise your security.
Can it be classified as a security feature if there is no identified security benefit?
I still like md5 for collision detection, but every damn security scanner flags it. So then you have to add the exception, then explain to auditors about the exception. It's not worth the hassle for the increased performance.
There's no reason to use md5 if you don't care about security and only want speed. Non-cryptographic hashes are incredibly fast to calculate and there are far faster hashing algorithms if you want to go that route. Using md5 is a "I don't want to think hard" answer, and if you don't want to think hard, then you might as well be secure in your default answer.