- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 09:08:07 -0700
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com>
- Cc: Matt Colyer <matt@typekit.com>, Erik van Blokland <erik@letterror.com>, "www-font@w3.org" <www-font@w3.org>
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotypeimaging.com> wrote: > Sorry for a delayed response. The reason I proposed to consider adding > checksum is because the WOFF file contains extended and private metadata > fields that are currently can be easily discarded – one can simply cut them, > zero-out related offset/length values in the WOFF header and modify the WOFF > length. I realize that adding checksum isn’t going to be a strong protection > against willful modifications, the same could be done with the checksum > present, but it would require a bit of an effort (to write the code to > recalculate the checksum). I believe that, by the time people are reaching into the file to cut out tables and modify several values, recalculating a checksum is trivial. The operations and abilities required to do so are basically the same. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 May 2010 16:09:04 UTC