Re: Deltarpm *not* ready for new RPM checksums (was Re: Ready for new RPM version?)

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

 



On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 07:52:32PM +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 19:41 +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> > Ok, I've been trying this, but how can we tell if the sequence is sha256
> > or md5 if we're *just* given the sequence (i.e. applydeltarpm -c -s
> > audit-libs-1.7.12-1.fc11-04548395de7d18795d88b32ea98897e90140 where it's
> > a sha256 sequence)?
> 
> Ok, I've got it.  We just check against md5 first, then sha256 if md5
> doesn't match.  It's not elegant, but it should work fine, especially
> since we're only checking for verification, *not* security.
> 
> Jonathan

Sorry for jumping in that late, but assuming a malicious deltarpm that
could fake a matching md5 sum to pass validation, wouldn't it get
applied and make that a security issue?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpopEf8r2J8A.pgp
Description: PGP signature

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux