If you've read my last blog entry, you saw that I was struggling a bit with the fact that I was unable to create a PGP key without SHA-1. This is a bit tricky, as there are various places where hash functions are used within a pgp key:

1. The key self-signatures and signatures on other keys. Every key has user IDs that are signed with the master key itself. This is to proofe that the names and mail adresses in the key belong to the keyholder itself and can't be replaced my a malicous attacker.
2. The signatures on messages, for example E-Mails.
3. The preference in side the key - this indicates to other people what sigature algorithms you would prefer if they send messages to you.
4. The fingerprint.

1 is controlled by the setting cert-digest-algo in the file gpg.conf (for both self-signatures and signatures to other keys). 2 is controlled by the setting personal-digest-preferences. So you should add these two lines to your gpg.conf, preferrably before you create your own key (if you intend to create one, don't bother if you want to stick with your current one):

personal-digest-preferences SHA256
cert-digest-algo SHA256

3 defaults to SHA256 if you generate your key with a recent GnuPG version. You can check it with gpg --edit-key [your key ID] and then showpref. For 4, I think it can't be changed at all (though I think it doesn't mean a security threat for collission attacks - still it should be changed at some point).

It is also not really trivial to check the used algorithms. For message signatures, if you verify them with gpg -v --verify [filename]. For key signatures, I found no option to do that - but a workaround: Export the key whose signatures you'd like to check gpg --export --armor [key ID] > filename.asc. Then parse the exported file with gpg -vv filename.asc. It'll show you blocks like this:

:signature packet: algo 1, keyid A5880072BBB51E42
	version 4, created 1294258192, md5len 0, sigclass 0x13
	digest algo 8, begin of digest 3e c3

The digest algo 8 is what you're looking for. 1 means MD5, 2 means SHA1, 8 means SHA256. Other values can be looked up in include/cipher.h in the source code. No, that's not user friendly. But I found no easier way.

The big question remains: Why is this so complicated and why isn't gnupg just defaulting to SHA256? I don't know the answer.

(Please also have a look at this blog entry from Debian about the topic)

At least since 2005 it's well known that the cryptographic hash function SHA1 is seriously flawed and it's only a matter of time until it will be broken. However, it's still widely used and it can be expected that it'll be used long enough to allow real world attacks (as it happened with MD5 before). The NIST (the US National Institute of Standards and Technology) suggests not to use SHA1 after 2010, the german BSI (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik) says they should've been fadet out by the end of 2009.

The probably most widely used encryption protocol is SSL. It is a protocol that can operate on top of many other internet protocols and is for example widely used for banking accounts.

As SSL is a pretty complex protocol, it needs hash functions at various places, here I'm just looking at one of them. The signatures created by the certificate authorities. Every SSL certificate is signed by a CA, even if you generate SSL certificates yourself, they are self-signed, meaning that the certificate itself is it's own CA. From what I know, despite the suggestions mentioned above no big CA will give you certificates signed with anything better than SHA1. You can check this with:
openssl x509 -text -in [your ssl certificate]
Look for "Signature Algorithm". It'll most likely say sha1WithRSAEncryption. If your CA is good, it'll show sha256WithRSAEncryption. If your CA is really bad, it may show md5WithRSAEncryption.

When asking for SHA256 support, you often get the answer that the software still has problems, it's not ready yet. When asking for more information I never got answers. So I tried it myself. On an up-to-date apache webserver with mod_ssl, it was no problem to install a SHA256 signed certificate based on a SHA256 signed test CA. All browsers I've tried (Firefox 3.6, Konqueror 4.3.5, Opera 10.10, IE8 and even IE6) had no problem with it. You can check it out at https://sha2.hboeck.de/. You will get a certificate warning (obviously, as it's signed by my own test CA), but you'll be able to view the page. If you want to test it without warnings, you can also import the CA certificate.

I'd be interested if this causes any problems (on server or on client side), so please leave a comment if you are aware of any incompatibilities.

Update: By request in the comments, I've also created a SHA512 testcase.

Update 2: StartSSL wrote me that they tried providing SHA256-certificates about a year ago and had too many problems - it wasn't very specific but they mentioned that earlier Windows XP and Windows 2003 Server versions may have problems.

I just read an article about the recent wordpress vulnerability (if you're running wordpress, please update to 2.5.1 NOW), one point raised my attention: The attack uses MD5-collisions.

I wrote some articles about hash collisions a while back. Short introduction: A cryptographic hash-function is a function where you can put in any data and you'll get a unique, fixed-size value. »unique« in this case scenario means that it's very hard to calculate two different strings matching to the same hash value. If you can do that, the function should be considered broken.

The MD5 function got broken some years back (2004) and it's more or less a question of time when the same will happen to SHA1. There have been scientific results claiming that an attacker with enough money could easily create a supercomputer able to create collisions on SHA1. The evil thing is: Due to the design of both functions, if you have one collision, you can create many more easily.

Although those facts are well known, SHA1 is still widely used (just have a look at your SSL connections or at the way the PGP web of trust works) and MD5 isn't dead either. The fact that a well-known piece of software got issues depending on hash collisions should raise attention. Pretty much all security considerations on cryptographic protocols rely on the collision resistance of hash functions.

The NIST plans to define new hash functions until 2012, until then it's probably a safe choice to stick with SHA256 or SHA512.