[gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Guido Budack]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 1025 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Francesco Turco]

> is the published MD5-hash still valid?

$ md5sum livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso 
e86da868be423283ec167725390faefc  livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso

Yes, the published MD5 hash is still valid.

> Further, how big is the resulting file exactly?

$ du -b livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso 
4198498304	livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Guido Budack]

Tnx

[gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Guido Budack]

So, after some additional tries I (again) hashed against a couple of recently downloaded files (f.e. Ubunto Studio, some smaller files I need for web-development etc pp) and the hashes are correct. (md5 as is sha...). So far are the mentioned 'hardware-faults' totally abstruse and further not topic related comments unwanted.
My intentions are clear- I want to install a minimalistic yet powerful OS (namely Gentoo Linux) where I work 85% of the time at the command-line and configure everything 'by hand'.
If that sounds 'masochistic' to some kind people who replied to me in the past well, then i am one :-).
I'd probably give Slackware a try too but I am totally away from 'proprietary stuff' and try as far as I can to avoid software what 'isn't GPL' or similar...

However is it interesting that I downloaded the files now 2 times and they have all incorrect hashes.
Before making any assumptions of the worst-case (like manipulation on the transport-way or similar) I'd like to bother the community once more with my matters and ask for help.
Probably I really did something wrong but I can't imagine that and tested all multiple times.

I used (like posted before) wget as the download-client and had in the whole time of download 3 retries.
Actually I am located deep into Asia (PH) and I am using a more or less slow WLAN_Stick as my line to the web.


Any suggestions?

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 379 bytes --]

On Friday 14 Mar 2014 12:41:22 Guido Budack wrote:
> So far are the mentioned 'hardware-faults' totally abstruse and further not
> topic related comments unwanted.

If your memory is faulty, or your PSU is playing up you could find that the 
hash calculated is wrong.  It only takes on bit to flip the wrong side and 
your hash could be thrown out.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re:[gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Guido Budack]

Hello Mick,

Yes, I know that, I am aware of it...
you don't deal here with some script-kid but with somebody who is observing the IT-development of the past 25 years with highest attention...
However, the hashes of about 5 other files I downloaded (and as I said some bigger ones too) are correct.

What I not understand at all is that the file-size is absolutely correct- that means to the last byte...

Probably I'll not get any explanation by the community (or even worse someone could 'attest me to try to attrack attention...')
Just wanted to let you know...

EOT

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 670 bytes --]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2014 21:15:38 +0800, Guido Budack wrote:

> you don't deal here with some script-kid but with somebody who is
> observing the IT-development of the past 25 years with highest
> attention...

How is anyone supposed to know your level of experience when you don't
let on?

You haven't posted the results of running md5sum -c on the correct file.

> Probably I'll not get any explanation by the community (or even worse
> someone could 'attest me to try to attrack attention...') Just wanted
> to let you know...

A strange attitude from someone asking for help...


-- 
Neil Bothwick

And on the seventh day God said :wq and then make

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1227 bytes --]

On Friday 14 Mar 2014 13:15:38 Guido Budack wrote:
> Hello Mick,
> 
> Yes, I know that, I am aware of it...
> you don't deal here with some script-kid but with somebody who is observing
> the IT-development of the past 25 years with highest attention... However,
> the hashes of about 5 other files I downloaded (and as I said some bigger
> ones too) are correct.

Right, but that could be incidental.  Dodgy PSUs can appear to be random in 
their behaviour, or depend on the overall load of the machine.


> What I not understand at all is that the file-size is absolutely correct-
> that means to the last byte...

OK, if the size is correct in kibibits (and not rounded up) then the 
discrepancy points to a miscalculation of the md5 hash.

What does 'md5sum -c <file_name.md5>' return exactly?

If you try 'md5sum <file_name>' more than once, but each time clear the memory 
cache first, do you get the same number?

> Probably I'll not get any explanation by the community (or even worse
> someone could 'attest me to try to attrack attention...') Just wanted to
> let you know...

I'm sure if you share more info some good Samaritan will drop by trying to 
help.  :-)

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Stroller]

On Wed, 12 March 2014, at 4:01 pm, Francesco Turco <fturco@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
>> is the published MD5-hash still valid?
> 
> $ md5sum livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso 
> e86da868be423283ec167725390faefc  livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso
> 
> Yes, the published MD5 hash is still valid.

Since this thread seems to have taken on a life of its own, and because no-one else has done so, I just wanted to check in and say this is the md5sum I'm getting, too.

I was careful to use the switch.ch URL that Guido gave in his first message.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 967 bytes --]

On Saturday 15 Mar 2014 11:06:22 Stroller wrote:
> On Wed, 12 March 2014, at 4:01 pm, Francesco Turco <fturco@fastmail.fm> 
wrote:
> >> is the published MD5-hash still valid?
> > 
> > $ md5sum livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso
> > e86da868be423283ec167725390faefc  livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso
> > 
> > Yes, the published MD5 hash is still valid.
> 
> Since this thread seems to have taken on a life of its own, and because
> no-one else has done so, I just wanted to check in and say this is the
> md5sum I'm getting, too.
> 
> I was careful to use the switch.ch URL that Guido gave in his first
> message.
> 
> Stroller.

Ha!  Could it be that the mirror has a corrupt iso, or is the DIGEST file 
hashes wrong?!

I'm on a metered ADSL connection here so I won't download the iso from 
different mirrors to compare, but someone else or the OP could do that, as has 
already been suggested in a previous post.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Stroller]

On Sat, 15 March 2014, at 11:16 am, Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday 15 Mar 2014 11:06:22 Stroller wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 March 2014, at 4:01 pm, Francesco Turco <fturco@fastmail.fm> 
> wrote:
>>>> is the published MD5-hash still valid?
>>> 
>>> $ md5sum livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso
>>> e86da868be423283ec167725390faefc  livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso
>>> 
>>> Yes, the published MD5 hash is still valid.
>> 
>> Since this thread seems to have taken on a life of its own, and because
>> no-one else has done so, I just wanted to check in and say this is the
>> md5sum I'm getting, too.
>> 
>> I was careful to use the switch.ch URL that Guido gave in his first
>> message.
> 
> Ha!  Could it be that the mirror has a corrupt iso, or is the DIGEST file 
> hashes wrong?!

Well, that's why I used the same URL given by Guido - I get a different md5sum from him.

Whichever mirror Francesco used, I get the same md5sum that he posted.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Stroller]

On Fri, 14 March 2014, at 12:41 pm, Guido Budack <glaivy@yandex.com> wrote:

> … a couple of recently downloaded files (f.e. Ubunto Studio, some smaller files I need for web-development etc pp) and the hashes are correct. (md5 as is sha...). … 
> 
> However is it interesting that I downloaded the files now 2 times and they have all incorrect hashes. 
> … 
> 
> I used (like posted before) wget as the download-client and had in the whole time of download 3 retries.
> Actually I am located deep into Asia (PH) and I am using a more or less slow WLAN_Stick as my line to the web.


When you downloaded this image twice and got incorrect hashes, did you get the _same_ wrong hash, or _different_ wrong hashes?

This dvd .iso file is pretty large - far larger than you need for your installation media - and I can only speculate that it's something to do with the size. Maybe, after 4GB, the ISP redirects to a webpage saying "you're taking the mickey with your download limits, pal" and that's what's causing the corruption.

I have no idea why you're bothering with this - I'd just download systemrescueCD (which is over a year newer, anyway) and get on with my install. Once Gentoo is downloaded, each emerge will md5sum each package's download automatically and if the problem really is with your system or RAM, then you'll know about it pretty quick.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Mateusz Kowalczyk]

On 15/03/14 11:46, Guido Budack wrote:
> strange...
> 

I have 12 threads about the same thing from you in my inbox. Stop it.
Stay in the one thread you created any properly reply to the messages.

If your mail client can't do threads, get a new mail client. Threads
exist for a reason.

I don't want to see this: http://fuuzetsu.co.uk/images/1394884504.png

Thanks.

-- 
Mateusz K.

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[the]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

>> $ md5sum livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso 
>> e86da868be423283ec167725390faefc 
>> livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso
>> 
>> Yes, the published MD5 hash is still valid.
> 
> Since this thread seems to have taken on a life of its own, and 
> because no-one else has done so, I just wanted to check in and say 
> this is the md5sum I'm getting, too.
> 
> I was careful to use the switch.ch URL that Guido gave in his
> first message.

$ wget
http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/gentoo//releases/amd64/20121221/livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso
- --2014-03-15 15:18:56--
http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/gentoo//releases/amd64/20121221/livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso
Resolving mirror.switch.ch... 130.59.10.36, 2001:620:0:8::20
Connecting to mirror.switch.ch|130.59.10.36|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK
Length: 4198498304 (3.9G) [application/x-iso9660-image]
Saving to: ?livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso?

$ md5sum livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso
e86da868be423283ec167725390faefc  livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso

$ openssl md5 livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso
MD5(livedvd-amd64-multilib-20121221.iso)= e86da868be423283ec167725390faefc


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJTJEC8AAoJEK64IL1uI2haSNQH/jAdFNME8zfXrE4ZIfMppwPI
p8n02dMFBHcd3zMQcbwaoFzgb9Ft1xixYCk6NYmHKsV35oNRPeneaPUftRt2WCQN
5BSpALcSK4qtFm90MnWQTgQqtK+C1x096RpsAFCJUTPkxdq8pVEYF4K4PdBXKYqX
EoCexQq4w6m4YYmSY5oqQG883pifBrSqNskY676dLxOaCAePz2GicNpWH+4nyQE/
m2k/X7ZoaJJfWsOszx4Or6SAX0eLZsywKzZq9PyRW5pi0VFHN+wqa/9+Ikhtbhv0
dI/sZd3owI2uzbstfCyvhmJwggDFSZfa5/8G6a1Xdjv/Y6uf/YYpQaQh7FBuiC8=
=aKBB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 477 bytes --]

On Saturday 15 Mar 2014 11:46:40 Guido Budack wrote:
> strange...

Guido, I don't know if this is a quirk of your mail client, but it makes 
difficult to follow the conversation in a thread.

It helps if you do not trim out all of the message that you are replying to.  
Some of us have no means of knowing which particular message you may have 
responded to, or which part in a message, if we have deleted previous messages 
from this thread.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] MD5SUM

[J. Roeleveld]

On Sat, March 15, 2014 13:11, Mick wrote:
> On Saturday 15 Mar 2014 11:46:40 Guido Budack wrote:
>> strange...
>
> Guido, I don't know if this is a quirk of your mail client, but it makes
> difficult to follow the conversation in a thread.
>
> It helps if you do not trim out all of the message that you are replying
> to.
> Some of us have no means of knowing which particular message you may have
> responded to, or which part in a message, if we have deleted previous
> messages
> from this thread.

Mick,

The thread-info is also removed from his emails, making it impossible for
any modern email client to properly thread the messages.

--
Joost