Re: Should not .torrent files be listed in SHA512SUMS et.al. ?

2018-02-15 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:41:41PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: >On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 02:48:49PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:41:14PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: >> >Hi, >> > >> >after having looked at >> > https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/bt-dv

Re: Should not .torrent files be listed in SHA512SUMS et.al. ?

2018-02-14 Thread Wouter Verhelst
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 02:48:49PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:41:14PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: > >Hi, > > > >after having looked at > > https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/bt-dvd/ > >i wonder whether the .torrent files are sufficently signed on the

Re: Should not .torrent files be listed in SHA512SUMS et.al. ?

2018-02-13 Thread Steve McIntyre
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 03:41:14PM +0100, Thomas Schmitt wrote: >Hi, > >after having looked at > https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/bt-dvd/ >i wonder whether the .torrent files are sufficently signed on their own. >At least they are not listed in the *SUMS files. > >Is this a simil

Should not .torrent files be listed in SHA512SUMS et.al. ?

2018-02-13 Thread Thomas Schmitt
Hi, after having looked at https://cdimage.debian.org/debian-cd/current/amd64/bt-dvd/ i wonder whether the .torrent files are sufficently signed on their own. At least they are not listed in the *SUMS files. Is this a similar security problem as with the .jigdo files ? (I have no clue of BitTo