Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:124593
Feedback-ID: id5114917:Fastmail
Message-ID: <aa6bc7aa-28d9-40ca-974f-65075adb6199@rwec.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2024 22:34:08 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [VOTE] Deprecations for PHP 8.4
To: internals@lists.php.net
References: <USzt7tZZlO1DmAbSTLhD-bqa23FqZn0zk2aah8Ndxgk9c7RY5PefQ8MjbYPUYAzr2_m4Cf-5AI4PuNBTS84rim_FNS6RaT-cWSv714HEvvU=@gpb.moe>
 <1a88918e-e808-d778-45e1-53797660e093@php.net>
 <CAPrKfG5Cw_nU7g7FR+t4C1-YZ8CDsDO_-sRs=yEsHO5kCTZL+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <c03eb187-bd21-4a4b-9faf-8d0243eaa994@varteg.nz>
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <c03eb187-bd21-4a4b-9faf-8d0243eaa994@varteg.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: imsop.php@rwec.co.uk ("Rowan Tommins [IMSoP]")

On 24/07/2024 23:01, Morgan wrote:
> And they would still be available as hash("md5") and hash("sha1"); the 
> only reason they're called out as their own distinct functions today 
> is historical inertia. 


I don't agree that the reasons for including standalone functions are 
"historical". The RFC itself gives a good reason for having such functions:

 > Unfortunately these cryptographically secure hash functions are only 
available by means of the generic hash() function ... making using them 
more verbose and thus seemingly more complicated


Rather than force people to use functions that we acknowledge are hard 
to use, surely the logical thing is to make the "right" code *easy* to use?

Which means if we want people to use SHA-256, let's add a sha256() 
function to make it easy.


This is what password_hash() and password_verify() did right: the 
functionality was already there in crypt(), but it's hard to use, and 
harder to use correctly. Providing clearer functions, even though they 
do the same thing, helps new developers "fall into the pit of success".

The hash() function isn't quite as confusing as crypt(), but according 
to the manual, it currently supports 60 different algorithms, most of 
which I have never heard of. I'm aware that "sha256" is better than 
"sha1", but should I be aiming higher, and using "sha384", or maybe one 
of the four flavours of "sha3"? Then there's the fun-sounding 
"whirlpool", the faintly rude-sounding "snefru", and a bewildering 
fifteen flavours of "haval".

A new user being told "don't use sha1(), use hash() and pick from this 
list" is more likely to say "ah, there's sha1, jolly good" than spend an 
afternoon reading cryptography journals. There's no pit of success to 
fall into.


Regards,

-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]