Re: Stronger Hashes for PKGBUILDs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On 12/07/2016 11:17 AM, Gregory Mullen wrote:
> If the argument left is, I don't want (better checksum) because it's
> shouldn't be thought of as a security check, and I want a security check.
> 
> Why can't the requirement be PGP sig's are now required, and we drop the
> checksum completely?

Won't work because many upstreams don't provide signatures.
Maybe giving a warning ("source authenticity was not verified due to
lack of GPG signature") would work?

-- 
GPG fingerprint: 871F 1047 7DB3 DDED 5FC4 47B2 26C7 E577 EF96 7808

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux