Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

pls, md5 or sha1 for ati-driver-installer-10-10-x86.x86_64.run

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • pls, md5 or sha1 for ati-driver-installer-10-10-x86.x86_64.run

    Wish ATI/AMD would post checksums. Anyone, md5sum for
    ati-driver-installer-10-10-x86.x86_64.run please?

    thx

  • #2
    d8e6b65b2e5e18b834287eb79cf086b3 ati-driver-installer-10-10-x86.x86_64.run

    Comment


    • #3
      sha1sum

      43f19aeea7ae982a04158ce5d932efe63c002758 ati-driver-installer-10-10-x86.x86_64.run


      Stupid 1 minute edit rule!

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          [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.

          Comment


          • #6
            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.

            Comment


            • #7
              ohoh. huh my md5 & sha1 doesn't match what you posted :O

              thanks, imma redownload..

              Comment


              • #8
                hmm the package must have been updated..?? I get something different. Can someone check again:

                https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/674/9206...x86.x86_64.run

                Comment


                • #9
                  Strange, I redownloaded the file and now I get different results.

                  md5sum

                  76bf598c07e432601b164dc31eb6d639 ati-driver-installer-10-10-x86.x86_64.run


                  sha1sum

                  d50d0b7ec2755c7be20ff81670958b98ace6a713 ati-driver-installer-10-10-x86.x86_64.run


                  The file size of my old copy from 24 Oct is 122029803 byte while the new copy is 122028975 byte. 828 bytes discrepancy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Two files has been updated/changed. The signature file (common/etc/ati/signature) has been changed and common/etc/ati/control has been changed.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The signature is not important, can be exchanged with any older one. It is written in the header of the installer, not in the compressed data and can be simply exchanged. The control file however must contain something like a pci id list with officially supported cards. This is usally only a subset of the pci ids which are specified in the fglrx kernel module. The only purpose of both files is to add a stupid watermark. A missing signature should show that you use a beta driver (or a hotfix one) - and the other watermark is that you use untested hardware. Both issues for a watermark are bullshit, because even when you use a beta driver you don't want to see it always. Nvidia just shows the beta sign when you start the X server, that's much less annoying. The 2nd case when you see a watermark mostly with new or fire pro hardware is stupid as well because the driver runs with it, otherwise you could not use it at all...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Silverthorn View Post
                        Two files has been updated/changed. The signature file (common/etc/ati/signature) has been changed and common/etc/ati/control has been changed.

                        Ok, thats a match. thx

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X