For A), I don't understand what the point is? I never mentioned what Linus is confident about, I talked about what you can verify when you pull from my mirror. I could replace a commit from 2010 with a malicious one

For B), I would think this could work, but it's a completely different solution from what you proposed and what I responded to.

▲

amluto 4 hours ago | parent [-]

> I could replace a commit from 2010 with a malicious one

How? Remember, there are (currently, anyway) no known SHA-1 preimage attacks.

▲

mort96 3 hours ago | parent [-]

We're discussing a hypothetical situation where SHA-1 gets even more broken. From my original comment in this thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49924179#49925367):

> If I can forge commits with any SHA1 hash at will

We probably don't want to wait until there are practical pre-image attacks discovered to change away from SHA-1.

	▲	amluto 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This is a fair point. I think I stand by my second proposal. I also think it's absurd that, after all these years, upstream git still can't figure out a credible migration plan.