- From: Marcos Caceres <marcosscaceres@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 20:29:20 +1000
- To: md84419@googlemail.com, public-appformats@w3.org
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> wrote: > On 2008-05-28 11:37:39 +1000, Marcos Caceres wrote: > >>> I'd suggest that you just reuse the algorithm URIs from the >>> various XML security specs in the autoupdate spec. Also, note >>> MD5 is pretty much dead these days, so there is no point >>> whatsoever in giving it any special status. > >> The hash check is kinda pointless because the widget must do a >> CRC check on the file entries prior to instantiation, so I might >> just take it out of the auto-updates proposal. > > Well, in today's environment, CRCs are mostly pointless. > > The hash may or may not be pointless: It would add a useful level of > protection against tampering if the update description was, e.g., > retrieved through HTTPS, but the updated widget itself through plain > HTTP. In that case, you'd want a known-strong hash, though. That > would work even in the absence of a signature on a widget. That's > useful in my book. Ok, good point. But can you suggest a way to do this without the custom XML update format? -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Wednesday, 28 May 2008 10:30:06 UTC