Skip to main content

Security Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest Algorithms
RFC 6194

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2020-01-21
05 (System) Received changes through RFC Editor sync (added Verified Errata tag)
2017-05-16
05 (System) Changed document authors from "Lily Chen, Sean Turner, Paul Hoffman" to "Lily Chen, Sean Turner, Paul Hoffman, Tim Polk"
2015-10-14
05 (System) Notify list changed from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org, tim.polk@nist.gov, turners@ieca.com, lily.chen@nist.gov, draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon@ietf.org to (None)
2012-08-22
05 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the No Objection position for Adrian Farrel
2011-03-31
05 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Published from RFC Ed Queue.
2011-03-31
05 Cindy Morgan [Note]: changed to 'RFC 6194'
2011-03-29
05 (System) RFC published
2011-02-11
05 Cindy Morgan State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent.
2011-02-11
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2011-02-11
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2011-02-11
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2011-02-11
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2011-02-11
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2011-02-07
05 Cindy Morgan Approval announcement text regenerated
2011-02-03
05 Cindy Morgan Removed from agenda for telechat
2011-02-03
05 Cindy Morgan State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation.
2011-02-03
05 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] Position for Adrian Farrel has been changed to No Objection from Discuss
2011-02-03
05 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-03
05 (System) New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-05.txt
2011-02-03
04 (System) New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-04.txt
2011-02-03
05 Dan Romascanu
[Ballot comment]
I support Adrian's DISCUSS. Reading the recommendations section and the supporting justification I rather have the feeling that the recommendations need to be …
[Ballot comment]
I support Adrian's DISCUSS. Reading the recommendations section and the supporting justification I rather have the feeling that the recommendations need to be 2119 capitalized and the document should be either standards track or BCP.
2011-02-03
05 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-03
05 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-02
05 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot comment]
The first paragraph of Section 1 mentions the SHA-1 and SHA-2 family.
It then goes on to say that SHA-0 and SHA-1 are …
[Ballot comment]
The first paragraph of Section 1 mentions the SHA-1 and SHA-2 family.
It then goes on to say that SHA-0 and SHA-1 are message digest
algorithms, but there is no further mention of SHA-2. I find that to be
a bit of a tease.
                                                                                       
---

"HMAC" is used unexpanded.
2011-02-02
05 Adrian Farrel
[Ballot discuss]
Section 4, "Guidance" seems stronger than I expect in an Informational
I-D. Not only does it tell protocol designers what they "must" and …
[Ballot discuss]
Section 4, "Guidance" seems stronger than I expect in an Informational
I-D. Not only does it tell protocol designers what they "must" and
"should" do, but it also refers to this document as a "specification".

I know you would like to set some hard rules, and they are possibly
necessary, but this is not the way to do it. Either tone down the
language, or bring this guidance back as standards track.
2011-02-02
05 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded
2011-02-02
05 Ron Bonica [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-02
05 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-02-01
05 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded
2011-02-01
05 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-31
05 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded
2011-01-30
05 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded
2011-01-25
05 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Recuse, has been recorded
2011-01-25
05 Peter Saint-Andre Placed on agenda for telechat - 2011-02-03
2011-01-25
05 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Peter Saint-Andre
2011-01-25
05 Peter Saint-Andre Ballot has been issued
2011-01-25
05 Peter Saint-Andre Created "Approve" ballot
2011-01-25
05 Peter Saint-Andre Ballot writeup text changed
2011-01-25
05 Peter Saint-Andre State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup.
2011-01-20
05 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2011-01-20
03 (System) New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-03.txt
2011-01-04
05 Peter Saint-Andre State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead.
2011-01-03
05 (System) State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call.
2010-12-16
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy
2010-12-16
05 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sandra Murphy
2010-12-09
05 Amanda Baber We understand that this document does not require any IANA actions.
2010-12-06
05 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-12-06
05 Amy Vezza
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: …
State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call: <draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-02.txt> (Security Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest Algorithms) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'Security Considerations for the SHA-0 and SHA-1 Message-Digest
  Algorithms'
  <draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-02.txt> as an Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2011-01-03. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon/
2010-12-06
05 Peter Saint-Andre Last Call was requested
2010-12-06
05 Peter Saint-Andre State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation.
2010-12-06
05 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-12-06
05 (System) Last call text was added
2010-12-06
05 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-12-06
02 (System) New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-02.txt
2010-12-03
05 Peter Saint-Andre State changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested.
2010-12-02
05 Cindy Morgan
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he …
(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

Sean Turner is the document Shepherd. He believes that it is ready for
publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The authors requested reviews from both the saag and cfrg list members.
There is no concern about the breadth of reviews with respect to the
cryptographic aspects of this draft.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization, or XML?

The shepherd feels there is no need for a wider review from a
cryptography perspective. The IETF LC will provide a wider review for
other perspectives.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

The shepherd has no additional concerns or issues that the IESG should
be aware of.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

This is not the product of a WG. No one has objected to its publication.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

There has been no threat of appeal.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The shepherd has verified that the document satisfies all ID nits.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document does not split its references. All references in this
informative document are normative.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The document shepherd has verified that the IANA considerations section
exists and is consistent with the body of the document. It assigns the
values for SHA-1 to deprecate in the IANA Hash Function Textual Names.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There is no formal language in this document.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

This document updates the security considerations for SHA-0, SHA-1,
HMAC-SHA0, and HMAC-SHA1. This document provides guidance with respect
to use of these algorithms. This document also updates the IANA Hash
Algorithm Registry for SHA-1.

Working Group Summary

The discussion about this draft was mostly about the guidance provided
in Section 4. Initially, it used 2119 language, but after comments the
2119 language was removed.

Document Quality

Prominent reviewers are noted in earlier answers and in the draft's
acknowledgment section. Aspects of the draft were also discussed Dan
Harkins, Nicolas Williams, and Jeffrey Hutzleman.

Personnel

Sean Turner is the Document Shepherd.
Peter Saint-Andre is the Responsible Area Director.
2010-12-02
05 Cindy Morgan Draft added in state Publication Requested
2010-12-02
05 Cindy Morgan [Note]: 'Sean Turner (turners@ieca.com) is the document Shepherd.' added
2010-11-08
01 (System) New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-01.txt
2010-10-01
00 (System) New version available: draft-turner-sha0-sha1-seccon-00.txt