Hi Andrew, Am Sunday 07 March 2010 18:47:29 schrieb Andrew Pollock: [..] > Hi Stefan, > > I'd missed the fact that you'd done this until now. Thanks! > > It looks anatomically correct, but makes it impossible to check existing > signed binaries that have MD5 checksums. It's a good start though, and is > definitely better than nothing. I'll have a play with it.
One thing I could offer would be a patch implementing both md5 and sha1, together with a command line switch to select one of the algorithms. Do you think that'd make sense? Ideally, I think an automatic detection wether md5 or sha1 is used in a signed binary would be better. However I assume that that'd be over my skill. Cheers, Stefan.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
