Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

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

Checksum for 1.20 archive changed : is this expected ? #1628

Closed
alexAubin opened this issue Apr 28, 2021 · 4 comments
Closed

Checksum for 1.20 archive changed : is this expected ? #1628

alexAubin opened this issue Apr 28, 2021 · 4 comments

Comments

@alexAubin
Copy link

alexAubin commented Apr 28, 2021

Checksum for 1.20 archive changed : is this expected ?

Bitwarden / Vaultwarden is packaged as a Yunohost app here

Users started to notice ~24 hours ago that the installation did not work anymore because the checksum of the file is not the one expected anymore. This checksum was computed on March 29th and was still valid at least 4 days ago (we have automatic testing checking this among other things)

We're trying to make sure that it's not a malicious actor that modified the archive (instead of blindly updating the checksum on our side), considering the tagged commit on this repo is still from March 28th here: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/tree/1.20.0 and here: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/releases/tag/1.20.0

Shall we be worried ? Or is it expected and we should just update the checksum on our side ?

Deployment environment

Not sure if relevant, this is just about doing a curl/wget + sha512sum from any linux distro ... Debian in the context of Yunohost, but also reproduce from Linux Mint

Steps to reproduce

curl -sL https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/archive/1.20.0.tar.gz | sha512sum

Expected behaviour

the expected sha512 value is: 96fc0c3d55ed770af7209f881e107c33cf8ddf5179c504eacbc155dcb0f28641e5d28dd9cbd4f071540a7aac3d0e40b519de1fb85a523c6b74fb91a930d329a8

Actual behaviour

the actual current sha512 value is:

ffe64a8783594b8dc5d4415f3f6898108f6ca38b48e17cdba3d7390c406462abf415cf7d99bfe45e80487ac35488e0022c47af38555c3cd8d956a936d0a38a11

Troubleshooting data

@dani-garcia
Copy link
Owner

The tar.gz file contains a directory with the name of the repo + the version so it makes sense that the checksum would change, those archives are generated by github directly and on the fly so it's nothing we can change on our side.

If you want to make sure that nothing is changed, you can clone the repository at the commit of that release (fd27759), verify it with my GPG key (https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0xFC8A7D14C3CD543A), and then check that the files match between the git repo and the tar.gz

@alexAubin
Copy link
Author

Alrighty, I guess that's okay then ... I was just thinking that the archives available in the release page https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden/releases/tag/1.20.0 are only generated once

But I noticed that the project rename happened recently, maybe this has something to do with it ?

@dani-garcia
Copy link
Owner

Yeah that's definitely the cause of the change, the folder inside the tar.gz went from bitwarden_rs-1.20.0 to vaultwarden-1.20.0, which is enough to change the hash. For what it's worth, I compared the content of the new tar.gz, with the same hash you mentioned, and the contents are identical to the commit of the 1.20.0 release, so everything seems okay.

Very strange of github to rewrite old releases like that instead of having them be static, yeah.

@BlackDex
Copy link
Collaborator

@alexAubin, yea that is probably the reason, as @dani-garcia also mentioned, the zip/.tar.gz contains the project name, and thus the checksum would change because of that, even though the code inside doesn't.

Same goes for all other previous release, they now have vaultwarden-VERSION as it's main folder name.

Repository owner locked and limited conversation to collaborators Apr 28, 2021

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants