7 ms·

How do you want to make sure that the hashes themselves haven't been tampered with?

• alex_sf 4y ago
  Hash them, duh.
• jrootabega 4y ago
  Tampering? That's harder. But to protect against corruption, since the hashes are shorter, you would be able to chisel them in different types of stone and glass and make 3+ copies of them. I suppose if you really want to protect against tampering, you could distribute so many copies that the ability to tamper with a majority of them would be very unlikely. But I think what was meant by "publishing" was that the hashes would be available to parties who would be willing and able to preserve them indefinitely.
• dingosity 4y ago
  you don't know if it's the hash or the data that's been tampered with. so if the stored or transmitted hash doesn't match the computed hash, you reject it.
  • nwellnhof 4y ago
    But if the hash matches, you can't know whether an adversary tampered with the data and simply updated the hash to match.