Join the AMA (Ask Me Anything) with the Firefox leadership team to celebrate Firefox 20th anniversary and discuss Firefox’s future on Mozilla Connect. Mark your calendar on Thursday, November 14, 18:00 - 20:00 UTC!

Este site irá ter funcionalidade limitada enquanto fazemos manutenção para melhorar a sua experiência. Se um artigo não resolve o seu problema e quiser colocar uma questão, temos a nossa comunidade de apoio à espera de o ajudar em @FirefoxSupport no Twitter, /r/firefox no Reddit.

Pesquisar no apoio

Evite burlas no apoio. Nunca iremos solicitar que telefone ou envie uma mensagem de texto para um número de telefone ou que partilhe informações pessoais. Por favor, reporte atividades suspeitas utilizando a opção "Reportar abuso".

Saber mais

SHA512SUMs for Firefox 46.0 are useless. Why?

  • 1 resposta
  • 2 têm este problema
  • 1 visualização
  • Última resposta por philipp

more options

Before Firefox 46.0, I could download the SHA512SUMS file, check its signature with gpg, then use that file to check that the copy of Firefox I was downloading was intact and hadn't been tampered with. I'd even created a script that downloaded the files and checked them for me. There are at least two things wrong with the SHA512SUMS file available for Firefox 46.0:

1. The filenames in it no longer correspond to the filenames on your site. Example: the entry for en-US linux-i686 for 45.0 has this for a filename after the SHA512 sum:

> linux-i686/en-US/firefox-45.0.tar.bz2

which reflects the actual directory and filename that the file is stored as. In contrast, the same entry for firefox 46.0 is:

> firefox-46.0.en-US.linux-i686.tar.bz2

... but the file on your website is still stored in the linux-i686/en-US directory as "forefox-46.0.tar.bz2".

Yes, I could correct for that in my script. But at's annoying, and also there's the second problem:

2. Some files aren't even in the SHA512SUMS file. The Windows files are nowhere to be seen. There's no ".exe" string in the file.

Please tell me this whole thing is an error that will be fixed?

Before Firefox 46.0, I could download the SHA512SUMS file, check its signature with gpg, then use that file to check that the copy of Firefox I was downloading was intact and hadn't been tampered with. I'd even created a script that downloaded the files and checked them for me. There are at least two things wrong with the SHA512SUMS file available for Firefox 46.0: 1. The filenames in it no longer correspond to the filenames on your site. Example: the entry for en-US linux-i686 for 45.0 has this for a filename after the SHA512 sum: > linux-i686/en-US/firefox-45.0.tar.bz2 which reflects the actual directory and filename that the file is stored as. In contrast, the same entry for firefox 46.0 is: > firefox-46.0.en-US.linux-i686.tar.bz2 ... but the file on your website is still stored in the linux-i686/en-US directory as "forefox-46.0.tar.bz2". Yes, I could correct for that in my script. But at's annoying, and also there's the second problem: 2. Some files aren't even in the SHA512SUMS file. The Windows files are nowhere to be seen. There's no ".exe" string in the file. Please tell me this whole thing is an error that will be fixed?

Todas as respostas (1)

more options

Solução escolhida