Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 11:46:33 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Matt Dillon <dillon@earth.backplane.com> Cc: "David O'Brien" <TrimYourCc@NUXI.com>, Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: [PATCH] add a SITE MD5 command to ftpd Message-ID: <15025.3593.230536.962890@nomad.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <200103150256.f2F2u1b37896@earth.backplane.com> References: <20010314084651.A23104@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <200103142342.QAA09233@usr08.primenet.com> <20010314161555.A4984@Odin.AC.HMC.Edu> <20010314185026.C7683@dragon.nuxi.com> <200103150256.f2F2u1b37896@earth.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Doesn't SITE MD5 introduce a race condition? What if someone does > a SITE MD5 and someone else then renames or modifies the file before > the first person proceeds to download it? > > Also, why bother doing an MD5 on the remote site if 99.9% of the time > you are going to get a match and download the file anyway? You might > as well download it first. Or perhaps simply check the size of the file > for a match (e.g. enhance ports to include the file size to check against > in addition to the MD5), then download it, then do the MD5 on the > local box. > > I just don't see much point in adding a command to FTP that isn't going > to be generally useful and has security holes in it to boot. If the MD5 signature is 'advisory', it's not going to introduce any security holes. Ultimately, the post must verify the MD5 locally, no matter what the remote site claims. It's a matter of saving bandwidth. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15025.3593.230536.962890>