Stephan, Andy, > Put briefly: when you tell fossil to give you the contents of file > abcdef...., it may internally go through several versions of that file on > its way to generating the one you requested, applying deltas as it goes. > The end result is that the content is logically immutable, and always > convertible to its original form (as determined by SHA1 comparison), but > Fossil doesn't actually store it immutably.
Thanks for the information. It would seem there are two general issues. One is fossil needs a way to detect corruption of various data and metadata and that problem is solved by using SHA1. The other issue, which is specific to specific situations, is whether the hash alone is sufficient to protect against malicious alteration of the repository. In the first case it would seem SHA1 is still acceptable although it's increasingly becoming apparent SHA1's days as an ideal hash have come and gone. In the second case I think it's possible to prevent and/or detect of attacks on the repo with very minimal workflow adjustments I outlined earlier, or something similar to that, without any changes to fossil at all. Thanks guys. /jl _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
