Subject: Re: muhah
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Trevor Johnson <email@example.com>
Date: 03/24/2001 08:05:45
> What you are failing to understand is that if one upgrades to a current
> pkgsrc while choosing not to upgrade userland/kernel beyond 1.4(.x),
Yes, someone who also chooses not to install cryptosrc, doesn't want to
install the OpenSSL package (pkgsrc/security/openssl), and wants to use
160-bit hashes in pkgsrc.
This person fears trojaned distfiles with colliding MD5s, but doesn't mind
the holes in the base system.
> Seeing as those parts of OpenSSL which are speedier are only hand-tuned for
> specific architectures, your declaration of speed advantage is moot.
It's true that the assembly code is only available for SPARC (MD5 only)
and x86. Supposing someone uses one of those architectures, it should be
an advantage for that person. Anyway, I was only responding to Alistair
Crooks' statement that he wanted something quick and OpenSSL didn't fit
the bill. He seems to have withdrawn that objection.
> On the other hand, sh, make, tar, pax, awk and patch are part of the base
> distribution, and one need only install comp.tgz to get the compiler.
...so relying on something in the base system, or on a packaged binary,
can be acceptable.
> # > It's not a huge problem, it's a minor niggle. Yes, we can massage output
> # > with sed, awk or expr. But I don't want to do that.
> # You misunderstand. What I requested is output from "digest sha1 foo" in
> # the format that "openssl dgst -sha1 foo" has, and likewise for "digest
> # rmd160 foo" to have the same format as "openssl dgst -rmd160". That way,
> # if it ever becomes desirable to use OpenSSL for hashing--for instance, in
> # a future world where pre-1999 versions of NetBSD needn't to be fully
> # supported--such massaging will not be necessary. I've appended a trivial
> # patch which does this. For the SHA-1 and RIPEMD-160 hashes, the slightly
> # different output is unnecessary. MD5 hashes have already been calculated,
> # so I don't propose changing them.
> But *why* should we be doing this?
I'll try to rephrase: by having the same format, it makes it possible for
someone to generate hashes with either digest or openssl, whether for
addition to a new "md5" file or comparison to an existing one, without
having to munge the file or the output of openssl. It makes them
compatible rather than gratuitously different.
> We've been doing it this way before the
> openssl stuff ever entered the picture.
OpenSSL hasn't entered the picture at all, for hashing in pkgsrc, but it
has been out in the world since 1997 or 1998, and has been in NetBSD since
1999, so for a slightly bigger picture, the situation is the opposite from
what you see. The digest utility is just a few days old.