This repository was archived by the owner on Mar 15, 2022. It is now read-only.
Use the local sha256hash #93
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…repo. This should be more resilient to remote file corruption/interference.
|
|
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Forgive me if I'm being a plonker, but doesn't it make more sense to use the locally stored sha256hash to verify the .zip file?
If the remote file repo has been compromised then it makes sense that the nefarious individual involved might also alter the hash file to match their new version of the file.
If you're only protecting against corrupt downloads, then admittedly, the original method would suffice.