4 ms·
Slightly off topic, but is there anyway we can actually confirm that "the SHA-1 hash of revision #102 of [redacted] is [redacted]." EDIT: redacted information.
by gizmo686 14y ago
Slightly off topic, but is there anyway we can actually confirm that "the SHA-1 hash of revision #102 of [redacted] is [redacted]."
EDIT: redacted information. Still, when that information we present, how would anyone be able to confirm it?
- JoachimSchipper 14y agoThe article redacted that data on the request of the original poster; please remove it from your post.
- joe5150 14y agoI had the same question but was too embarrassed to ask. Thanks for doing it for me. :)
- RyJones 14y agoI assume some other dev with source access at Microsoft could verify that fact, broadcast that the fact is true, and thereby stamp the OP as actually who he says he is.
- marshray 14y agoFrom what I've heard (unofficially) the source is typically watermarked to identify the sources of any leaks. He may have given himself away with the SHA-1.
- gizmo686 14y agoI doubt it. Not only would that involve generating a different watermark for each person with access to the code, but in doing so you also raise complications for source control. Additionally, it is almost impossible for developers not to notice if supposedly identical files are not identical, not to mention the fact that implementing the type of system without the conscious corporation of the developers seems impossible.