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

Re: SHA1 and 256 (again) :)

On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 02:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/19/2009 02:20 AM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:30:37AM -0500, Scott Robbins wrote:
> > 
> > As suspect, there's already posts on the forums about this.  (Smugly
> > mutters, "told ya so".  :)
> > 
> > Seriously, someone pointed out that some docmentation, the docs for
> > burning CD's seem to indicate that one should use sha1.   
> > 
> > 
> > http://docs.fedoraproject.org/readme-burning-isos/en_US/sn-validating-files.html
> > 
> > That should probably get fixed--I'm not sure if I have write access, and
> > I don't have a Windows machine to test the instructions, so someone?
> Refer to
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2009-November/msg00047.html
> Note that changing HASH: SHA1 to anything else in the top of the file
> will make the gpg check fail since it writes it out that way. So it's
> sort of a tricky issue to solve. Not sloppiness.

To be clear, I think the documentation page that Scott linked talks
about SHA-1 not because someone misread the checksum file but simply
because it's _old_. It was written at a time when the checksums actually
where SHA-1. Note the reference to Fedora 7.

I think the above page needs to be updated to refer to SHA-256
checksums. Also, both it and https://fedoraproject.org/en/verify might
benefit from explicitly mentioning the potential confusion between the
signature algorithm and the checksum algorithm, until F13 is current.

Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org

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