Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

secretz proposed solution doesn't look correct #93

Open
estani opened this issue Dec 12, 2014 · 0 comments
Open

secretz proposed solution doesn't look correct #93

estani opened this issue Dec 12, 2014 · 0 comments

Comments

@estani
Copy link

estani commented Dec 12, 2014

by just removing the encryption and issuing this command:

$ tar cz *.js | node test4.js aes256 12e

The proposed solution results in:

d58a433358aac365cf9775fd720c3877d8511d1533c570132a49ad3a37d40607fafb6b323fea7b405b8692721bfae694ba2d8570a5f7f6a8dc73601441271f2946ba3db932c373a0b9197d044e075ca1 prog.js
 test2.js
 test3.js
 test4.js
 test.js

So the verification is also wrong.
To create a proper result I had to insert the filename into the chunk at the thorugh stream, which is conceptually wrong since the chunk could get splitted (won't happen here since the hash is so small that no implementation will chunk it)

why is this getting mixed up? The proposed solution looks right, but the results don't...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant