On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-Aug-25 13:16:40 -0700, Brooks Davis wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 09:51:50PM +0200, guy@device.dyndns.org wrote:
> >> I _believe_ answer is "no", because i _think_ the FreeBSD ports system also
> >> verify the size of the archive(s) (cat /usr/ports/any/any/distinfo to see
> >> what made me think that).
>
> I don't believe the size adds much security.
it makes it harder for the person, it limits them in what they can do, it
also picks up files whos download was interupted...
> >Paranoia might suggest adding support for multiple hashes which would
> >vastly increase the difficulty of finding a collision
>
> I'd agree with this. Identifying suitable hashes is a more difficult task.
sha-1? rmd160?
> >Hmm, one thing to think about might be making sure the various archive
> >formats are hard to pad with junk. I think the stream based ones need
> >to allow zero pading at the end to support tapes, but it would be
> >intresting to see if other junk can end up in pading sections without
> >the archiver noticing. If so, that would be a good thing to find a way
> >to detect.
>
> tar uses one (or two) blocks of NULs to mark logical EOF - anything
> beyond that is ignored. gzip ignores (but warns) about padding after
> its expected EOF. I'm not sure about bzip2. I suspect it would be
> possibly to include arbitrary padding inside a ZIP file, though
> probably not at the end. This would make it relatively easy to pad a
> trojan'd file to any desired size.
here is where the size thing comes in... if they have to add padding then
it makes it harder (because of warnings, etc)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"