[flake8-bandit] Update insecure hash functions (S324)

[VascoSch92]

This PR solves issue #16572

Could be an idea to define a HashSet containing the names of the insicure hash functions? In this way would be easier to update in case other insicure hash functions are added to the list.

[github-actions]

ruff-ecosystem results

Linter (stable)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

Linter (preview)

✅ ecosystem check detected no linter changes.

[MichaReiser]

I'd like to have a link to a reference documenting that these are references. I also think that they are so obscure (the number once), that I don't feel like we have to support them.

A reference is important because I otherwise find it impossible to know what these obscure numbers refer to and if they are indeed insecure.

Edit: I took a closer look at the issue. I think it's perfectly fine if Ruff only supports the guaranteed hash functions and that we, instead, should update the documentation to state so.

[VascoSch92]

Hey,

Thanks for the feedback. I tried to find a clear reference, but it's hard to find one which resume all the insicure hash-functions (or I'm not good in searching ;-)) . I agree that it makes sense for Ruff to only support reliably secure hash functions.

[MichaReiser]

See inline comment

[Skylion007]

Aren't we doing this the wrong way? We should be maintaining a whitelist instead of a blacklist of FIPS supported hashlib functions. Maybe with a way to specify additional safe ones through the pyproject.toml? As far I understand it, FIPS specification is a whitelist of supported functions, not a blacklist anyway.