Linked by Thomas Leonard on Tue 16th Jan 2007 00:32 UTC
Permalink for comment 203106
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-09-17
Otherwise anyone could create malware and provide a hash to match it, but make it look like normal software.
Yes, just because something is in the shared directory doesn't mean it's safe to run it. One reason why unfriendly names are OK here is that you really don't want users browsing around running things that just look interesting!
Furthermore, don't the archive contents have to be re-analyzed every time you want to verify their authenticity?
No, that's why you have the privileged helper. It checks the digest once and then adds it. So, if you see a directory called:
/shared-directory/sha256=XXXXXXX
then you don't have to calculate the XXXXXXX bit yourself. If it didn't match, it wouldn't have been allowed in.
BTW, you don't need to use the web to check the hash. It may be that Alice and Bob both trust the CD (in which case they get to share the copy on it). Denise doesn't trust the CD, so she checks with the web-site instead (and will share the copy only if it matches).