Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ultim" data-source="post: 877621" data-attributes="member: 843">Hi, sorry for the late reply.Both of your warnings are incorrect. You cannot even access the website over HTTP or any of its files at all. All HTTP access is automatically upgraded (redirected) to HTTPS by the server, so it doesn&#039;t matter what format the links are in. I challenge you to download TinyWall from its website over an unencrypted connection, you cannot (and I haven&#039;t changed anything, this has been like this since many years).As for the hashes, these are used for file integrity verification and not security purposes, and MD5 and SHA1 are perfect choices here due to their compatibility and speed. Using hashes on the webpage for security purposes would be pure nonsense because if the downloads were compromised or replaced by an attacker, they can also replace the hashes on the download page. So it doesn&#039;t matter how secure the hash functions are, *any* download hashes distributed on a webpage are insecure by nature. Choosing a cryptographically secure hash and then publishing it on the webpage to verify the authenticity of the download would be like buying the most expensive and secure lock for your house, and then hiding the key to it under door mat outside - it only gives a false impression of security without any benefit.To verify the authenticity of the download (to make sure it has not been replaced by an attacker) you always have to look at the digital signature of the downloaded file. Digital signatures are the only valid and secure method for this purpose. Of course, TinyWall comes digitally signed, so there is no problem here either. And the signature hash algorithm is SHA-256, so it is secure as it should be.In other words, none of the points you brought up need addressing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ultim, post: 877621, member: 843"] Hi, sorry for the late reply. Both of your warnings are incorrect. You cannot even access the website over HTTP or any of its files at all. All HTTP access is automatically upgraded (redirected) to HTTPS by the server, so it doesn't matter what format the links are in. I challenge you to download TinyWall from its website over an unencrypted connection, you cannot (and I haven't changed anything, this has been like this since many years). As for the hashes, these are used for file integrity verification and not security purposes, and MD5 and SHA1 are perfect choices here due to their compatibility and speed. Using hashes on the webpage for security purposes would be pure nonsense because if the downloads were compromised or replaced by an attacker, they can also replace the hashes on the download page. So it doesn't matter how secure the hash functions are, *any* download hashes distributed on a webpage are insecure by nature. Choosing a cryptographically secure hash and then publishing it on the webpage to verify the authenticity of the download would be like buying the most expensive and secure lock for your house, and then hiding the key to it under door mat outside - it only gives a false impression of security without any benefit. To verify the authenticity of the download (to make sure it has not been replaced by an attacker) you always have to look at the digital signature of the downloaded file. Digital signatures are the [U]only[/U] valid and secure method for this purpose. Of course, TinyWall comes digitally signed, so there is no problem here either. And the signature hash algorithm is SHA-256, so it is secure as it should be. In other words, none of the points you brought up need addressing. [/QUOTE]

Verification