News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Bitcoin Core: Bitcoin Core 0.21.1 released with Taproot a... by xorcist on Monday May 03, 2021 @08:00AM (#27023960)
It would indeed offer no security if the hashes weren't signed (which they are).

The question is rather why distribute a separate file with hashes and their signatures, rather than just the signatures themselves, seeing how all useful cryptographic signatures contains the hash anyway?

I suspect the answer is that it is somehow more convenient for the build and release process to distribute one file with all hashes, rather than lots of individual signatures for each artifact. The release process is quite elaborate with several parties independently reproducing that exact build. But someone would have to correct me on that.

That's probably also why they don't consider the broken Windows certificate important enough to stall the release. Relying on a single CA does not provide them with the type of security they are looking for.

Re:Bitcoin Core: Bitcoin Core 0.21.1 released with Taproot a... by Black101 on Monday May 03, 2021 @09:43AM (#27024970)
> The question is rather why distribute a separate file with hashes and their signatures, rather than just the signatures themselves, seeing how all useful cryptographic signatures contains the hash anyway?

that is what needs to be fixed, and ideally would become part of the archive format so that it can be automatically checked (but also should have the option to disable it).