Django db backend not FIPS compliant

114 views
Skip to first unread message

Brandon Williams

unread,
May 30, 2017, 4:21:24 PM5/30/17
to Django users
I'm running into issues when trying to migrate my models in an environment that is running FIPS restrictions regarding MD5.  Here is the stack trace:

Operations to perform:
  Apply all migrations: admin, auth, contenttypes, dashboard, kombu_transport_django, sessions
Running migrations:
  Applying contenttypes.0001_initial...Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "manage.py", line 10, in <module>
    execute_from_command_line(sys.argv)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line 367, in execute_from_command_line
    utility.execute()
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/__init__.py", line 359, in execute
    self.fetch_command(subcommand).run_from_argv(self.argv)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py", line 294, in run_from_argv
    self.execute(*args, **cmd_options)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/base.py", line 345, in execute
    output = self.handle(*args, **options)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/core/management/commands/migrate.py", line 204, in handle
    fake_initial=fake_initial,
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/migrations/executor.py", line 115, in migrate
    state = self._migrate_all_forwards(state, plan, full_plan, fake=fake, fake_initial=fake_initial)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/migrations/executor.py", line 145, in _migrate_all_forwards
    state = self.apply_migration(state, migration, fake=fake, fake_initial=fake_initial)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/migrations/executor.py", line 244, in apply_migration
    state = migration.apply(state, schema_editor)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/migrations/migration.py", line 129, in apply
    operation.database_forwards(self.app_label, schema_editor, old_state, project_state)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py", line 532, in database_forwards
    getattr(new_model._meta, self.option_name, set()),
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/base/schema.py", line 333, in alter_unique_together
    self.execute(self._create_unique_sql(model, columns))
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/base/schema.py", line 913, in _create_unique_sql
    "name": self.quote_name(self._create_index_name(model, columns, suffix="_uniq")),
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/base/schema.py", line 819, in _create_index_name
    index_unique_name = '_%s' % self._digest(table_name, *column_names)
  File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/django/db/backends/base/schema.py", line 123, in _digest
    h = hashlib.md5()
ValueError: error:060800A3:digital envelope routines:EVP_DigestInit_ex:disabled for fips


 Is there a particular reason why MD5 is used here? Is there any harm in changing it to sh512 or something similar?

Tim Graham

unread,
May 30, 2017, 5:06:23 PM5/30/17
to Django users
This usage generates a short, unique identifier for a database index name. The usage of md5 here isn't security sensitive. Changing it to some other hash could be backwards incompatible because Django would no longer know the names of indexes in existing projects. There are other usages of md5 in Django where a short, fast hash is needed. I'm not sure if prohibiting the usage of md5 in Django or adding a setting to allow selecting some other hash in all those places is worth the additional complexity but you could write to django-developers to get other opinions.

Tim Graham

unread,
May 31, 2017, 9:36:20 AM5/31/17
to Django users

Andrew DiPrinzio

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 11:22:45 AM7/16/17
to Django users
I am having the same problem. Anyone have a solution other than patch hashlib?

Andrew DiPrinzio

unread,
Jul 16, 2017, 11:09:16 PM7/16/17
to Django users
All, 

I have submitted a ticket where i propose the use of the "usedforsecurity=False" flag. Please take a look and comment if you have any thoughts. 

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages