full-disclosure - Re: All the md5 hashes in every single update message sent to this list

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <58DB1B68E62B9F448DF1A276B0886DF16E6EBA86@EX2010.hammerofgod.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 16:10:24 +0000
From: "Thor (Hammer of God)" <thor@...merofgod.com>
To: "ben@...owel.com" <ben@...owel.com>, Zach C. <fxchip@...il.com>
Cc: "full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk" <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: All the md5 hashes in every single update
 message sent to this list

Because you have a separate "out-of-band" communication from the publisher containing the hashes.  Anyone hosting the files somewhere could have altered the patch and then generated their own MD5 hash and "signed" it themselves and provided that on their site.  It's just another layer of authentication.  

Best thing to do is just ignore it if you don't agree with the practice as you can't control how or why a developer chooses to publish patch details. 

t

>-----Original Message-----
>From: full-disclosure-bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure-
>bounces@...ts.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of ben@...owel.com
>Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 8:46 AM
>To: Zach C.
>Cc: full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk
>Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] All the md5 hashes in every single update
>message sent to this list
>
>What is the advantage of having all the hashes posted to the list over doing
>something like having a digitally signed text file next to the update on their
>servers and occasionally publish the pubkey to the list? I feel like that would
>provide the same level of confidence the package was unaltered as just
>reading the hashes from the list.
>
>> They do this so that people who are manually installing or updating
>> software can also verify that the package they are installing is, in
>> fact, the exact same one that the software packager released -- this
>> reduces (but not
>> eliminates) the chance that someone malicious may have been able to
>> slip something into the update package unnoticed by the installer or
>> the packager.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:22 PM, B1towel <ben@...owel.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What is the purpose of all the patch notification emails that when a
>>> security vulnerability is fixed the people who send out the
>>> notification email include a 5 mile long list of md5 hashes for every
>>> single package and all dependancies for the package that was updated?
>>> I feel that information does not need to be in the notification that
>>> the latest version fixed a security vulnerability, and to me it just
>>> gets in the way of reading the occasionally useful content this list
>>> has to offer.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>>> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>>> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
>Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
>Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/