pls, md5 or sha1 for ati-driver-installer-10-10-x86.x86_64.run
Wish ATI/AMD would post checksums. Anyone, md5sum for
Stupid 1 minute edit rule!
That's basically not needed, because they are embeeded. Same for nvidia installers and every other self extracting package based on makeself. You could only use it to verify that ati replaced the installer later than official release, that was rarely done when there have been missing control files and such things.
[QUOTE=Kano;155380]That's basically not needed, because they are embeeded. Same for nvidia installers and every other self extracting package based on makeself.
Not true. While it may be good for file/download integrity checking, it does nothing for detecting tampering/haxoring. The bad guy could change the whole package to whatever he wanted, and changed the embedded checksum.
Now, i'm not so paranoid that I think anyone would ever attempt such a complicated man in the middle attack... none the less, its good to have an external checksum.
I have got a script to repackage ati installers I can even change the compression. But it is very unlikely that somebody exchanges the file on the ati server.
ohoh. huh my md5 & sha1 doesn't match what you posted :O
thanks, imma redownload..
hmm the package must have been updated..?? I get something different. Can someone check again:
Strange, I redownloaded the file and now I get different results.
The file size of my old copy from 24 Oct is 122029803 byte while the new copy is 122028975 byte. 828 bytes discrepancy.
Two files has been updated/changed. The signature file (common/etc/ati/signature) has been changed and common/etc/ati/control has been changed.