From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Sep  6 18:19:28 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35758106564A;
	Thu,  6 Sep 2012 18:19:28 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from arthurmesh@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com
	[209.85.160.54])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2FEA8FC15;
	Thu,  6 Sep 2012 18:19:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by pbbrp2 with SMTP id rp2so3054577pbb.13
	for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
	:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
	bh=VR5jM8t02yZcW4r26tKjZOx3h6AV+wW7yzRpm8HPW0Q=;
	b=V1Cdgfvl0me/lfko5my1iNAhrpJwxqT69zmzTco/dxnuE/6aY6cnJ7OezxRuGWALN/
	PmXPL1ajtxnm/wZnXmXodmKaevXSQlhfISL0U33LTQVEv6C0SxJL3BjddBGBnuQgEG9d
	EB+bB4Hdj2id4yTn3qaL7Xjyj/BBBsrhe6K1zCQZYbx1+iJiCfklLCbEW9rdG0C9kxrJ
	xDH1UF/kX+gYNnEx69iRe4pPTlu+llQcu9RfbrlLtwDlgVDPTuO2xK6BYq9yM5aC9qYQ
	dAGUZMynZY2iWja3PVfRW9RHKwVmG8rDWrqKXEZ1mnRsQ+paI52e5tzuS2PIJQjZuD67
	GQpA==
Received: by 10.68.213.138 with SMTP id ns10mr5551492pbc.157.1346955567738;
	Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from x96.org (x96.org. [64.85.165.177])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kt2sm1712915pbc.73.2012.09.06.11.19.24
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:19:22 -0700
From: Arthur Mesh <arthurmesh@gmail.com>
To: Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav <des@des.no>
Message-ID: <20120906181922.GA89120@x96.org>
References: <201208221843.q7MIhLU4077951@svn.freebsd.org>
	<5043DBAF.40506@FreeBSD.org>
	<20120903005708.7082f230@gumby.homeunix.com>
	<20120906171824.GC14757@dragon.NUXI.org>
	<86392vqc86.fsf@ds4.des.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <86392vqc86.fsf@ds4.des.no>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:31:43 +0000
Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org, RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: svn commit: r239569 - head/etc/rc.d
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 18:19:28 -0000

On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 07:42:49PM +0200, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote:
> Is there a reason to choose sha256 over a weaker, faster hash?

Given the fact that yarrow uses sha256 internally, I don't think it's a
sound idea to add weaker links to the chain.