Problem with the SHA256 signatures (download files) for the new releases 1.1.1d, 1.0.2t, 1.1.0l etc

Richard Levitte levitte at
Wed Sep 11 21:40:52 UTC 2019

Issue found...  Apache detected .gz in the file name and set the
encoding to 'application/x-gzip'...  Apparently, we already force .asc
and .sha1 files to application/binary, but have apparently not added a
similar directive for .sha256 files.

Now done.


On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 22:04:53 +0200,
Michael Wojcik wrote:
> I can confirm Carl's issue when I download using Pale Moon (a Firefox fork):
> -----
> $ file openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.sha256
> openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.sha256: gzip compressed data, from FAT filesystem (MS-DOS,
>  OS/2, NT)
> $ file openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.sha1
> openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.sha1: ASCII text
> $ file openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.asc
> openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.asc: PGP signature Signature (old)
> $ gpg --verify  openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz.asc  openssl-1.1.1d.tar.gz
> gpg: Signature made 09/10/19 09:13:14 EDT using RSA key ID 0E604491
> gpg: Good signature from "Matt Caswell <matt at>" [full]
> gpg:                 aka "Matt Caswell <frodo at>" [full]
> -----
> So the .sha1 file and the signature look fine, but the .sha256 file is apparently a fragment of gzip-compressed data. And ... let's see ... gunzip'ing it gives us the SHA256 hash in ASCII. So my guess the server is gzip'ing it (or it's gzip'ed at rest on the server), but the server isn't setting the content-transfer-encoding correctly. Chrome might be content-sniffing and decompressing based on that. I haven't looked at the response headers though.
> (Personally, I always check the signature and don't bother with the posted hashes.)
> --
> Michael Wojcik
> Distinguished Engineer, Micro Focus
Richard Levitte         levitte at
OpenSSL Project

More information about the openssl-users mailing list