[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Lzip-bug] Tarlz 0.4: Use of 'ustar' format instead of 'posix'; ques
Antonio Diaz Diaz
Re: [Lzip-bug] Tarlz 0.4: Use of 'ustar' format instead of 'posix'; question about future of Tarlz utility
Fri, 01 Jun 2018 13:35:34 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i586; en-US; rv:22.214.171.124) Gecko/20110420 SeaMonkey/2.0.14
Timothy Beryl Grahek wrote:
Thanks. I have copied then to my TODO list and will try to implement
them as time permits. Of course I'll implement first the "limited
posix format" to allow files larger than 8 GB.
Excellent! I am very glad to hear that.
I think I have found an unexpected difficulty. It seems that the pax
format has a serious flaw not present in the ustar format. The extended
records in the pax extended header are not protected by any checksum in
spite of containing critical metadata (file size, filename, file
time,...). This may lead to several kinds of undetected corruption.
Please, could you verify that extended records are not protected by
any checksum. Thanks.
Maybe we will need to propose a change to the pax format.