Re: md5sum proposal
> I have a different memory of events. This proposal was brought
> up on this list, and was shot down because
> a) It really provides no security.
It is not for *this* security reason (crackers, hackers and others)
> b) It would bloat the packaging system, when it does not really solve
> the problem
Good policy could help.
> c) It does not address the config files, which are quite as critical
> -- more critical, in fact, than other files, because other files
> can be foxed by reistalling the packages from a known good
> archive/CD
Config files could be excluded from md5sums.
> d) There are standalone solutions that do a good job -- though we may
> need to work on free replacements.
You mean free solutions?
A few weeks ago I had a system crash. I had to check which packages was
broken. I had to do this _quickly_ and _easly_.
I lost a lot of time because I had to do it manually - a lot of packages
didn't have md5sums check file.
md5sums doesn't repend of dpkg. It is possible to use "3rd party" tool
like debsums.
--
Piotr "Dexter" Roszatycki
mailto:dexter@fnet.pl
Reply to: