[FFmpeg-devel] [PATCH] add md5 muxer
Mon Sep 28 11:16:18 CEST 2009
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 09:30:36AM +0200, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:56:30PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 07:53:18PM +0200, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 07:31:00PM +0200, Michael Niedermayer wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 12:04:27PM +0200, Reimar D?ffinger wrote:
> > > > > we have -f crc, but IMO 32 bit crc are a bit little for a whole file and
> > > > > also we use md5sum in the regression tests, so I'd propose to add a -f
> > > > > md5 as in attached patch.
> > > >
> > > > why md5 instead of sha1?
> > >
> > > Because md5 makes more sense for the simple reasons that
> > > 1) we already use it in regression tests
> > > 2) a md5/md5sum binary is available anywhere, I do not know
> > > something comparable for sha
> > > 3) for security-relevant stuff they are all "useless"
> > >
> > > Which leaves me to ask: why sha1? I don't really see anything in
> > > its favour
> > well, because someone could use it with source files under outside
> > control.
> > I would guess that in that case it can likely be used to return
> > misleading values ...
> For that sha256 may barely be enough, but surely not sha1.
> However it's not a big deal to provide both or more, the question is
> just how. I'd favour a one muxer per hash format approach (though
> possibly in the same file as for the raw formats).
i thought a project that doesnt specialize onto hashes would be fine
with a fast one and a secure one ...
when it makes sense to put these in the same file then ian of course
fine with that
Michael GnuPG fingerprint: 9FF2128B147EF6730BADF133611EC787040B0FAB
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your
right to say it. -- Voltaire
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the ffmpeg-devel