Thanks for the heads up. For some reason, the information at our CDN remained incorrect for the "BAD" files, so I purged all the current release files there, so their cache for them would rebuild from scratch. They look better now. Cheers, Richard On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 00:25:40 +0200, Carl Tietjen wrote: > > > Still seeing the issue for SOME of the SHA256 files... I waited for a while thinking it might be > a cache issue, but no change. > > https://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-1.0.2t.tar.gz.sha256 -- BAD > > https://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-1.1.0l.tar.gz.sha256 -- OK > > https://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.sha256 -- BAD > > https://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-fips-2.0.16.tar.gz.sha256 -- OK > > https://www.openssl.org/source/openssl-fips-ecp-2.0.16.tar.gz.sha256 -- OK > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Levitte [mailto:levitte@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 2:41 PM > To: Michael Wojcik <Michael.Wojcik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Carl Tietjen <Carl.Tietjen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Matt Caswell <matt@xxxxxxxxxxx>; > openssl-users@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Problem with the SHA256 signatures (download files) for the new releases 1.1.1d, > 1.0.2t, 1.1.0l etc > > Issue found... Apache detected .gz in the file name and set the encoding to 'application/ > x-gzip'... Apparently, we already force .asc and .sha1 files to application/binary, but have > apparently not added a similar directive for .sha256 files. > > Now done. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:04:53 +0200, > > Michael Wojcik wrote: > > > > > > I can confirm Carl's issue when I download using Pale Moon (a Firefox fork): > > > > > > ----- > > > $ file openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.sha256 > > > openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.sha256: gzip compressed data, from FAT > > > filesystem (MS-DOS, OS/2, NT) > > > > > > $ file openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.sha1 > > > openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.sha1: ASCII text > > > > > > $ file openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.asc > > > openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.asc: PGP signature Signature (old) > > > > > > $ gpg --verify openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.asc openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz > > > gpg: Signature made 09/10/19 09:13:14 EDT using RSA key ID 0E604491 > > > gpg: Good signature from "Matt Caswell <matt@xxxxxxxxxxx>" [full] > > > gpg: aka "Matt Caswell <frodo@xxxxxxxxxxx>" [full] > > > ----- > > > > > > So the .sha1 file and the signature look fine, but the .sha256 file is apparently a fragment of > gzip-compressed data. And ... let's see ... gunzip'ing it gives us the SHA256 hash in ASCII. So my > guess the server is gzip'ing it (or it's gzip'ed at rest on the server), but the server isn't > setting the content-transfer-encoding correctly. Chrome might be content-sniffing and > decompressing based on that. I haven't looked at the response headers though. > > > > > > (Personally, I always check the signature and don't bother with the > > > posted hashes.) > > > > > > -- > > > Michael Wojcik > > > Distinguished Engineer, Micro Focus > > > > > > > > -- > > Richard Levitte levitte@xxxxxxxxxxx > > OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/ > > -- Richard Levitte levitte@xxxxxxxxxxx OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org/~levitte/
