[lkml]   [2003]   [Mar]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Deprecating .gz format on
On 2003-03-20, Joern Engel <joern () wohnheim ! fh-wedel ! de> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 March 2003 17:39:20 +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > (b) On something as large as a .tar, decompressing a bz2 file to
> > check the signature is really quite slow, compared with checking the
> > signature of the compressed file.

> That shouldn't matter, most of the times. If you want to build the
> code, you have to [bg]unzip anyway, so there is no extra cost.
> And I have a hard time to think of a real-world application where you
> don't want to unpack but need to verify the signature.

A few come to mind:
-To verify and then use a .tar.[bg]z2?, you must gpg --verify and then
tar -x[jz]vf, but to unpack, then verify, then use you must uncompress
to a tempfile or pipe to gpg, then verify, then untar. Silly waste of
CPU and/or disk space.[*]
-Verifying downloads immediately, when they won't necessarily be needed /
used right away; no need to unpack until it's needed, but would like to
know the download is bad right away.
-Verifying something pulled down to one machine before scp'ing it elsewhere
where it will actually be used.
-Verifying before [bg]unzip means you won't expose [bg]unzip to likely
malicious data (think bugs in [bg]unzip which make them crash on bad
compressed files). Of course GPG/PGP is still subject to input-based
bugs, but they are in any case; no need for the decompression tools to
be as well.

[*] ...Now if tar had a --sig option to chain gpg between gunzip and
untar... but that would just be Wrong.

Hank Leininger <>

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:34    [W:0.056 / U:2.516 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site