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

sha confirmation #17

Open
RickCogley opened this issue Feb 26, 2016 · 2 comments
Open

sha confirmation #17

RickCogley opened this issue Feb 26, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@RickCogley
Copy link

Hi - thank you for passlok, @fruiz500. Reading through the docs, I am trying to check the sha 256, but, it simply does not work. I tried the websites mentioned in the doc, and, copying the source to a file called passlok.html on my local drive and doing:

me@mine:~|⇒  shasum passlok.html
c37cc4b71900312d592a9c71677f41a19c1fb63b  passlok.html
me@mine:~|⇒  shasum -a 256 passlok.html
73502b5538af98213e653b7fa28c6b34ab05c1bc423f3c8e2a35d28880fe0417  passlok.html

How can I confirm the sha?

@fruiz500
Copy link
Owner

Yes, I've found this to be finicky, too. Using the clipboard with the source is liable to introduce artifacts, especially in Chrome, which will lead to a changed hash. Locally hashing a true source file, obtained by ctrl-u, followed by save, rather than a "save as", which saves the code after the browser's interpretation of it, is the safest way, but some OSs (Windows) don't have built-in functions for it, hence the referral to web-based tools.
And then, again, web-based hashes may have their own problems. Do you have a suggestion for the most reliable way to obtain a hash of the source code?

@RickCogley
Copy link
Author

I haven't looked into it, as I didn't know that Chrome might produce
artifacts. I'll put it in the queue to look at.
--Rick

On June 22, 2016 at 00:50:37, fruiz500 (notifications@github.com) wrote:

Yes, I've found this to be finicky, too. Using the clipboard with the
source is liable to introduce artifacts, especially in Chrome, which will
lead to a changed hash. Locally hashing a true source file, obtained by
ctrl-u, followed by save, rather than a "save as", which saves the code
after the browser's interpretation of it, is the safest way, but some OSs
(Windows) don't have built-in functions for it, hence the referral to
web-based tools.
And then, again, web-based hashes may have their own problems. Do you have
a suggestion for the most reliable way to obtain a hash of the source code?


You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#17 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAfRSGDjlUYWX1jjeA3PMgwtbOirgTNMks5qOAhMgaJpZM4Hjhci
.

This email message and any attachments are confidential, and are meant to
be read by the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended
recipient, we would request you delete this message or any attachments
without reading or distributing, and kindly advise eSolia Inc. (contacts:
esolia.com/about http://esolia.com/about). Thank you in advance.

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

2 participants