MD4 bug-fix for protocol version 27

jw schultz jw at
Thu May 8 08:56:32 EST 2003

On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 10:26:57AM -0700, Wayne Davison wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 02:39:57AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > It is not that simple for rsync... it needs to be backwards compatible
> > with the busted implementations. I believe some patches have been
> > submitted that do this, and they are probably in the TODO list for
> > submitting to CVS.
> No, it has already been checked in.  So, it looks like his patch is
> really all that is needed as long as the change in the algorithm is
> valid (which I did not attempt to verify) -- i.e. protocol 27 is
> already using a bug-fixed MD4 algorithm, and we should make it as
> bug-free as possible before the next release.

OK.  Two issues here.

1. Is this fix correct to give us full md4 compliance?

2. If so, do we bump to protocol 28?  It has been a month
   since protocol 27.  This would break things for those
   with cvs versions since then.  I was going to describe it
   as a rare corner case (length % 64 == 4) but realized
   that amounts to more than 1%.
   The issue is whether to break things for those few who
   are running cvs that would mix cvs versions or to hasten
   the day when 2.5.6 becomes incompatable.

Lets hear it.

	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw at

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

More information about the rsync mailing list