I'm a long time fan of Fossil and contributed a bit to its development (in particular, TLS support and some protections against timing attacks). I'm not sure where you found provocative language, but let me try to explain it here more clearly.

Design deficiency

(This is unrelated to the choice of hash.)

Fossil stores blobs as-is. A file containing "hello world" will be stored as "hello world" and referenced as HASH("hello world").

Commits are stored as plain-text manifests, which are also referenced as HASH(manifest_contents). To distinguish between different types of artifacts (commit, file, wiki page, etc.), Fossil checks the contents of the blob.

See https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fileform... for detailed description.

This made possible the following attack:

* Clone repository.

* Modify some files, commit.

* Deconstruct repository.

* Attach the deconstructed artifacts with changes to a ticket in the original repository or to a wiki.

By doing this, you could make commits to the target directory by attaching files to tickets or wiki, and these commits were only visible to people who cloned the repo until rebuilding (then they would be visible to everyone).

This attack was prevented by compressing every attached file with gzip, making it impossible to attach a file that would be recognized as a commit, because gzip adds its own header.

I think this design is deficient: instead, each blob should have a type indicator — that is, file artifacts should have some prefix. This is how Git works: each object has a prefix indicating its type. Also, Plain 9 had a filesystem called... also Fossil! — which was based upon Venti content-addressable storage, which stored typed blobs.

Unfortunately, changing this will break compatibility, and since Fossil artifact format was built to last for ages, I don't think it will be changed.

SHA-1 claims

What made me rant about Fossil after congratulating them on switching to SHA3-256 is that they made false claims regarding their use of SHA-1 in the same documentation which shows these clams are false:

Quoting https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/hashpoli...:

The SHA1 hash algorithm is used only to create names for artifacts in Fossil (and in Git, Mercurial, and Monotone). It is not used for security. Nevertheless, when the Shattered attack found two different PDF files with the same SHA1 hash, many users learned that "SHA1 is broken". They see that Fossil (and Git, Mercurial, and Monotone) use SHA1 and they therefore conclude that "Fossil is broken". This is not true, but it is a public relations problem. So the decision was made to migrate Fossil away from SHA1.

If you search the docs, you discover that they use SHA-1 for security:

* To store passwords (https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/password...)

* In the client-server authentication protocol in an adhoc MAC construction (https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/sync.wik...)

Speaking of passwords, the automatically generated passwords are too short: I just created a repo with Fossil v2.1 and got "efc6f5" as initial password. It's 6 hex characters, or just 3 bytes — trivial to crack.

Finally, I as I said, I really like Fossil even though I don't use it anymore for open source projects (I still use it for some private projects) and have a great respect to its author and other contributors. But in my opinion, it needs at least a fundamental but simple change in the storage format to introduce object types.

If something is unclear or you have questions, I'm happy to answer.