From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Oct 28 19:21:56 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id TAA14561
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:21:56 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from roguetrader.com (brandon@cold.org [206.81.134.103])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id TAA14550
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 28 Oct 1997 19:21:51 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from brandon@roguetrader.com)
Received: from localhost (brandon@localhost)
	by roguetrader.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA22956;
	Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:21:47 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 20:21:47 -0700 (MST)
From: Brandon Gillespie <brandon@roguetrader.com>
To: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se>
cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: more general checksum command, replacing md5?
In-Reply-To: <199710290248.DAA07742@ocean.campus.luth.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971028201921.22948A-100000@roguetrader.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Mikael Karpberg wrote:

> According to Brandon Gillespie:
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 1997, Mikael Karpberg wrote:
> > 
> > > According to Brandon Gillespie:
> > > > Just curious, with the inclusion of SHS hashing in crypt(), would anybody
> > > > consider a generalized checksum command?  It wouldn't be too hard to make
> > > > a general 'cs' or 'checksum' command that accepts arguments to determine
> > > > the algorithm being used... ala: 
> > > 
> > > Er... Why not, in that case, just add those options to the chsum program?
> > 
> > Because the checksum program is 'md5'
> 
> I meant the 'cksum' program, ofcourse. And as you say, the one used is the
> md5 program. That should have been an option in 'cksum' too, instead, I
> think. Ofcourse, it could detect name started with to auto-select algorithm.
> That way md5 could be made a hardlink to cksum.

Ahh, I couldn't find cksum last time I checked...

Hmm, and its POSIX...

To fit within posix-ness, what about making the checksum CRC be similar to
the passwd format.. namely, $TOKEN$HASH, where TOKEN is MD5, SHS or
whatever...  So:

> md5 foof
MD5 (foof) = edcee025269de378b1ce4714dcb97326
> cksum -md5 foof
$MD5$edcee025269de378b1ce4714dcb97326 41658 foof

How does POSIX look at expanding the functionality of a POSIX command?
I.e. if it supports all POSIX functionality, but adds more?

-Brandon Gillespie