Re: [Tails-dev] 2.0~rc1: Installed Partition Hash does Not Match That of ISO
This may be caused by subtle differences between how the (crazy, ISO-hybrid) partition table in our ISO image is set up or interpreted. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] 2.0~rc1: Installed Partition Hash does Not Match That of ISO
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016, at 11:01 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > If you're using a GNU/Linux system, /dev/sdX (where X is a lower-case > letter, like /dev/sdb) is the USB disk itself, and /dev/sdXN (where X > is a lower-case letter and N is a number in decimal, like /dev/sdb1) is > the partition. That is what I meant; the PARTITION of the (USB flash) disk that the Tails ISO was written to, i.e., /dev/sdXN (e.g., /dev/sdb1, /dev/sdc1, etc.) Sorry if I was not clear enough about that. I realized all along that the full device (i.e., full disk) is always larger (and usually much larger) than the ISO and the partition containing the installed ISO (and therefore that the hashes for the full-device will always be different than those for the Tails partition that resides on said device.) For past releases of Tails, the cryptographic checksums (sha256; sha1; md5) for said partition would always match those of the ISO. This allowed me to verify, first, that the write (using dd or cat) had completed without error. Additionally, at any time I wished, I could verify that my Tails partition had not become corrupted by simply generating its hash and then checking that hash against the hash that I knew to be the correct one for the ISO that said partition was written from. (I realize that the second function can still be performed by recording the hash of the Tails partition that was generated immediately after writing said partition to disk and then using said hash as the one to compare against. But since the hash of the partition no longer matches that of the ISO that said partition was written from, I would still be left wondering whether the partition was properly written in the first place AND, even if it was, WHY its hash no longer matches that of the very ISO that it was created from-- as had been the case for me with all past releases of Tails.) Below is the sha256sum I get for the ISO, followed by the one I get for the partition that was written from the ISO. (Note that I verified the ISO against its signature.) sha256sum tails-i386-2.0~rc1.iso 4df44c896a61fc9751463cf3a94d482f1ec0c6d1ae86b270758a2ded544e33d9 tails-i386-2.0~rc1.iso sha256sum /dev/sdX1 3e813eee1d2a38902b31c1180e342237d2c66a36faebe37c065434a10c58fbf0 /dev/sdX1 ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] 2.0~rc1: Installed Partition Hash does Not Match That of ISO
On Mon 2016-01-25 10:07:06 -0500, random_u...@airpost.net wrote: > - In order to rule-out an error during the writing from ISO to USB > stick, I repeated the entire process a second time. The result was the > same: the hashes for /dev/sdX (the partition containing the installed > ISO) do NOT match the hashes for the ISO If you're using a GNU/Linux system, /dev/sdX (where X is a lower-case letter, like /dev/sdb) is the USB disk itself, and /dev/sdXN (where X is a lower-case letter and N is a number in decimal, like /dev/sdb1) is the partition. Are you talking about the USB stick itself or about some partition on the USB stick? If you're using dd to write the ISO to the USB stick, you'll note that the iso is a different size from the USB stick's volume: du -k tails-i386-2.0~beta1.iso grep sdb /proc/partitions The chances that two bytestreams of different size have the same cryptographic digest should be negligibly small, so it makes sense that the iso and the USB stick have different hashes. I'm surprised you've ever seen that to be the case. > - The USB stick that I used for the install is one that I have used many > times previously, without issue, to install past releases of Tails-- > including 1.8.2 can you repeat the process with the 1.8.2 and verify that they are the same? Maybe you were comparing something different at the time? --dkg ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
[Tails-dev] 2.0~rc1: Installed Partition Hash does Not Match That of ISO
Hello, I have found a difference concerning the manual installation to USB between Tails 2.0~rc1 and previous versions of Tails (including the last stable release, 1.8.2). With the previous versions, I would always find that the checksums (sha256;sha1;md5) of the partition of the installed ISO (/dev/sdX) would match the checksums of the ISO that I had downloaded (and verified the signature of). Now, after manually installing Tails 2.0~rc1 onto a USB stick, I have found that the checksums of the Tails partition do NOT match those of the ISO. Please note the following relevant facts concerning this discrepancy: - In all cases, I had verified the ISO against its signature before installing it to USB - In order to rule-out an error during the writing from ISO to USB stick, I repeated the entire process a second time. The result was the same: the hashes for /dev/sdX (the partition containing the installed ISO) do NOT match the hashes for the ISO - The USB stick that I used for the install is one that I have used many times previously, without issue, to install past releases of Tails-- including 1.8.2 - The OS and hardware that I used were also the same Any ideas? ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
