Slashdot Mirror


TransGaming Tagging Downloads to Combat Piracy

SeanTobin writes "It seems that TransGaming is implementing a new watermarking system to combat piracy. For now it seems that every tgz of Cedega 4.0.1 is individually tagged, and this has been frustrating Gentoo users who (like many others) like to be sure their archives are unmodified. Is this the future of software downloads? Is this tiny loss of personal privacy worth the increase in TransGaming's security?" Update: 08/16 17:42 GMT by S : There's an official response on the TransGaming forums indicating: "We can confirm that Cedega 4.0.1 included some basic watermarking... The objective behind the watermarking was to deal with some peer-to-peer piracy issues that we've been seeing over the past several months... We have suspended the watermarking feature for now and Gentoo users no longer need to be concerned with work-arounds."

46 of 512 comments (clear)

  1. Breaks gentoo ebuilds by ChronoWiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a real pain because it actually breaks the gentoo ebuilds!

    1. Re:Breaks gentoo ebuilds by codergeek42 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not necessarily. Just do

      # cd /usr/portage/
      # ebuild app-emulation/cedega/cedega-4.0.1.ebuild digest

      and it will ask you to place the tarball in /usr/portage/distfiles. Then, so long as you don't remove it, the md5sum will match. Hope this helps!

    2. Re:Breaks gentoo ebuilds by Nasarius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right, but that's just a workaround. There's no way for the Gentoo developers to really fix this without disabling an important security feature of portage.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    3. Re:Breaks gentoo ebuilds by KentoNET · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or just 'emerge --digest cedega'.

      These will entirely destroy any kind of verification about the dist tarball, though, which is what the focus of the Transgaming forums post was about (and rightly so).

      --
      "You tried your best and failed miserably. The lesson is...never try. Heh!" -Homer
    4. Re:Breaks gentoo ebuilds by zerocool^ · · Score: 5, Funny


      Funny... I'm trying it on your server at work, too...

      --
      sig?
    5. Re:Breaks gentoo ebuilds by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > I'd say that copyright protections do hamper casual copying of games, for those individuals who WOULD copy it but aren't technical to figure out workarounds by themselves.

      I know that this line of reasoning is often used, and at first glance it really makes sense.

      What it ignores is the following:

      Whenever someoen puts up a method to prevent copying, there are people who find reason to circumvent it, not just to the point of being able to copy the original (game) itself, but going as far as providing a version without the copy protection or creating a program that will fool the copy protection.

      In either case, the non technical user can now make copies of existing (illegal) copies without needing more knowledge then clicking 'copy' in Nero or whatever CD writer tool they happen to use.

      This has been true since the early 80s at least, and I do not see anythign havign changed there in the almost quarter century since.

      So no, it does not prevent non-technical people from copying the games or other software, but it does stop those who want to make a legitimate backup copy and don't want to get into illegal activity alltogether.

      > But lets face it, Gentoo users are more than technical enough to pirate anything if they really want to.

      Well... being a good unix administrator will do fine for setting up and usign Gentoo, but in many cases you need to be a somewhat decent 'hacker' in order to circumvent copy protection.. its not the same set of skills (there are quite a few peopel who happen to have both tho)

    6. Re:Breaks gentoo ebuilds by repvik · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Wrong, And even if they are defeated you will find that the goal of this security method is to deter piracy, not to prevent it. I.e. If you are a cracker, you will circumvent the system. If you are a general user you won't know where to start. For example, the company I work for uses SecuROM CD protection which can be overcome without too much difficulty, but most customers don't know how to.

      Look... before the digital age, this way of thinking could work. Now that we're in the digital age, it's enough for one little fucker to pirate whatever you've made, and (fanfare), it's out on p2p for everybody and his dog to download.
      Seriously, software is going to be pirated (Until someone comes up with a better scheme). Until then, all it does is annoy legitimate users. Pirates bypass the copy-protection anyways. Hell, pirates even get the software before it hits the street (ref. DooM 3, Condition Zero, UT2004).
      So basically it's better to be a pirate. Not only do you get the latest über-cool game before that annoying neighbour, but you can laugh at him while he struggles to play his game (bought with his hard-earned money), fighting a copy-protection scheme that seems to be designed for one reason only... To make it hard for normal users to play.
      Also, the fact that several of the programs I've bought actually denies me the right I have to make a backup copy (Yes, I *do* make archival copies and store them off-site. I've been through two fires in my life). A pirated version allows me to make as many backup copies I'd like. With *no* fuzz.
      So, for the average user, can we extrapolate where this is going? I still buy stuff that I want. But if there's a copy-protection scheme of some sort, I'm not going to buy from that vendor again.

      Also, you can run arbitrary bit sums which would be ideal in this case. For exaple, the Java language has classes for this. You can download the .tgz on one machine, run an arbitrary crc or adler checksum on a portion of the file that does NOT include the signature. Then simply download on another machine and repeat. This should give cynical people like you the reassurance you need. If both sums are the same you might be ok, of course you can have as many sum checks as you want..

      What on earth are you smoking? If a l33t script kiddie has managed to replace that damn .tgz with a one containing a r00t kit, do you think it'll help downloading it twice?
      I'm not saying Gentoo's way of checking the sources isn't flawed. But it's a hell of a lot better than downloading the r00ted tarball twice.

  2. easy workaround by Sparr0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    unzip two copies, find any differences, produce a third copy with random garbage in place of whatever the watermark is.

    1. Re:easy workaround by riprjak · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or, as an alternative; fsck transgaming and use traditional WINE... or simply use the gentoo ebuild tools to generate a new MD5 hash based on the .tgz you downloaded... you *DO* trust transgaming's own binaries, dont you??? hmmm??? :)

    2. Re:easy workaround by pc486 · · Score: 5, Informative

      From the article:

      Bytes 0x10 through 0x23 in the tgz are the signature. They are unique in every download and are probably recorded by transgaming to know who downloaded what archive. Also, all hopes of using md5 or any other form of checksumming to verify valid files are out the window.

      So there you have it. Gentoo is forced to download from Transgaming's website and they keep changing signatures. Unless you are installed a warezed copy of it, MD5 checksums arn't going to be of much use.

    3. Re:easy workaround by desplesda · · Score: 4, Informative
      The guy who posted this, Q3Man, posted this followup:
      With some help from cyph in #cedega, I've come to the conclusion that the builds are infact watermarked, although simply tagged might be a better description. Bytes 0x10 through 0x23 in the tgz are the signature. They are unique in every download and are probably recorded by transgaming to know who downloaded what archive. Also, all hopes of using md5 or any other form of checksumming to verify valid files are out the window.
    4. Re:easy workaround by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If byte 0x10 through 0x23 are always going to be unknown then assume byte 0x0 to byte 0x23 are unknown.

      Then publish the md5sum of bytes 0x23 and on. It wouldn't be very difficult to modify md5sum to start reading from a given byte offset.

    5. Re:easy workaround by Vreejack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think that was the original point. All the cracked versions will have 0x00 in the tags, but legitimate users will be encumbered.

      When a copy protection scheme makes it desireable for legitimate users to used cracked versions of the software then there needs to be a rethink.

      --
      "Will future ages believe that such stupid bigotry ever existed!" -- Ivanhoe
    6. Re:easy workaround by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems that

      a) Only the .TGZ, aka .tar.gz for real unix people, is marked. So, just re-tar it and the tag (that ain't even deserving of the term watermark) is gone.

      b) If they did something more hardcore, two copies would not necessarily be enough remove all identifiers. It isn't hard to come up with a scheme in which there are multiple sets of tags and any one combination of those tags defines a single download, but if say, 3 of the 4 tags are the same, then a straight diff only picks up 1 of the 4 tags and thus leaves the other 3 to identify a group of downloads from which both "pirates" took their copies. Play enough games assigning different users to different sets of tags for different releases and you could probably narrow down the pool to the exact people who are participating in unauthorized sharing in a month or two. It just a practical application of set theory to do it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:easy workaround by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Developers and publisher houses; take notice. This is the very same reason "No-CD" cracks are so damn popular.

    8. Re:easy workaround by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Informative
      A few lines of a shell script plus programs to split the file would do it.

      Here you go:

      python -c 'import md5, sys; print md5.new(sys.stdin.read()[0x24:]).hexdigest()'
    9. Re:easy workaround by John+Hurliman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, anyone who is going to pirate this make sure to scramble those bytes, or just unpack the tgz then repackage it.

      The pirates are slowed down for about 8 seconds while many legitimate customers are screwed over. Thanks Transgaming!

    10. Re:easy workaround by Ryan+Huddleston · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's trivially easy to do.

      cp cedega-4.01.tgz cedega-4.01-backup.tgz &&
      dd bs=1 seek=16 count=19 if=/dev/zero of=cedega-4.01.tgz &&
      dd if=yay2.txtcedega-4.01-backupt.tgz of=cedega-4.01.tgz seek=36 bs=1

      and later you can remove the backup.

      For the not-quite-as-geeky-as-me crowd, that zeroes out the marked bytes. That took me maybe five minutes (due to OBO errors) when I am blearily tired at 3 am.

      They're going to have to do better than that.

    11. Re:easy workaround by ActiveSX · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would enjoy seeing somebody hiding a trojan in the header of a tarball.

    12. Re:easy workaround by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      It's trivially easy to do.
      cp cedega-4.01.tgz cedega-4.01-backup.tgz &&
      dd bs=1 seek=16 count=19 if=/dev/zero of=cedega-4.01.tgz &&
      dd if=yay2.txtcedega-4.01-backupt.tgz of=cedega-4.01.tgz seek=36 bs=1

      Linux is just like Windows! Linux is ready for the average user! Linux is easier than Windows!

    13. Re:easy workaround by Black+Acid · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those not blessed with Python: dd if=file.tar skip=36 | md5

    14. Re:easy workaround by PedanticSpellingTrol · · Score: 4, Funny

      And so the race begins!!

  3. Different md5sum is a problem. by nayigeta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How would one verify that an archive is correct, or packaged from a reliable source, if the md5sum differs?

    In my opinion, the cons outweight the pros for doing so.

    --
    Sunset over the lake, cool mist over the bridge; A leave upon the ripples, the snow reflects its glow.
  4. Don't Like it? by Dr.+Bent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't buy it.

  5. Microsoft has done this already... by tisme · · Score: 4, Informative

    Microsoft did this with Windows XP beta to see what beta testers were "leaking" the information. Somebody figured it out though and testers were in an uproar shortly thereafter. Frankly, if you buy (or rent) electronic hardware from a store, the serial number is recorded on the receipt to avoid a switcheroo... this is simply an extension of that in my opinion. Not a good thing for people who misuse their licenses... but nothing major for people who follow the rules.

    1. Re:Microsoft has done this already... by Trelane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except that it's a major PITA for those of us who do subscribe and do like the integration/installation ease of Gentoo.

      Just like it's a major PITA to carry around all those double-danged game CDs despite the fact that I could install the full version on my laptop and not have to worry about tracking the original media and making sure it doesn't get lost/damaged/stolen. Does it hurt the pirates? No, they are just using a burned copy anyway; they can make a burned copy as a backup. Backups don't work for me, the legal user, but they sure work well for the pirates! Gee, thanks!

      [BTW, a major thank you to Bioware and Unreal Tournament 2004: at least for the Linux native versions, no cd is required to play! Yaaaay!]

      --

      --
      Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
  6. Re:blargh by Dorsai65 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Me, when I do a lot of work, I like to get paid for it. TG is 'fronting' the money needed to develope until they sell the product; if they don't sell enough, then it's not worth it to them to keep doing it and they fold up their tent and go home. If somebody likes their stuff *that* much, then pay for it.

    --
    --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
  7. I'll stick to free software, thanks by etymxris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was recently getting back into gaming and considering becoming a Transgaming subscriber again. Maybe I would have chosen not to anyway, but I'm certainly not after this. Not because it's really worse than anything any other proprietary software company would do, but because it reminds me of why I prefer free (libre) software over proprietary software.

    I remember when Transgaming was going to open source everything they wrote, if only they got enough subscribers. Well that pipe dream fell through. I'll stick to free software. There's no going back on such a promise with free software.

  8. No surprise here by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I think it was no secret that this was going to happen eventually, although the article makes it sound like just the tgz is tagged, not the binaries themselves. So you should be able to open it, re-zip it, and be on your way. I hope that they are providing md5's for those of us who are smart enough to check.

    But from reading the article, I don't get the impression that this is an anti-piracy effort either. Consider that the RPMs and DEBs are unaffected. Could be anti-piracy, but it could also be just a download counting system or maybe per-user customization.

    Certainly, it seems clear that they're not actively tracking you and that they're not going to be able to tell if you happen to install it on your desktop and laptop. The only way you're going to get in trouble (if that is indeed their goal) is if your unaltered tgz starts appearing en masse on the p2p networks.

  9. Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If Linux is going to go bigtime on the desktop, you are just going to have to put up with this kind of stuff. Hell, I would bet that distributors put even more protection on commercial Linux apps/games since (pardon my generalization) Linux users are used to software being free (as in beer). Prepare for it to get worse in the coming years.

  10. Loss of Privacy? by LochNess · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Is this tiny loss of personal privacy worth the increase in TransGaming's security?


    If you don't download it, you don't have any "loss" of privacy.

    People throw around the idea of the loss of privacy as though they are being compelled to download whatever it is.
  11. It's not the best way to do it... by zarthrag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..but I feel their pain.

    I've discussed this option before, and it's difficult to do without developing an entirely new online distribution format, however it is (in the end) an infinite uphill battle when it comes to copyprotecting non-multiplayer games. Signing a download will simply thward willy-nilly copiers. Any warez producer worth their salt will breeze by this one by either producing their own archives by simply ferreting out the watermark.

    I'm not familiar with cedega, but I'm sure it's no different from any other title. If it ain't an MMO, you can't attain near-zero piracy - period.

    Maybe someday, when bandwidth is free, we can write games that you simply "connect" to. It'll connect to your kb/mouse/controllers, and you'll get a video feed back, or some commands for your 3D renderer. No updates, no piracy, no privacy.

    --
    Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
    1. Re:It's not the best way to do it... by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Interesting

      . . . and I feel their pain . . .

      . . . but I still don't agree.

      There's a game called Gish. I played the demo. I loved it. I bought it and installed it. And still loved it!

      So I brought it to a friend's house, and installed it there, and we played it, and she said "this game rocks!". And before I left I erased it. She said she'd probably buy it.

      So I brought it to another friend's house, a few days later! Or I tried to. Because, see, I'd just been downloading it off their website, but their website locked me out because I'd downloaded it too many times. So I emailed them, and they said yes, they'd unlock it so I could download it again, but I was only allowed to install it three times. The verification system wouldn't let me install it more than that.

      What the hell? They hadn't mentioned this before. Like, you know. When I paid them money for it.

      So I complained, and they refused to do anything. It's to protect against piracy! It's for everyone's better good! If you need to install it more than three times, why not just buy another copy? It's not that expensive!

      I'd been planning to install it on my second computer so I could play around with it when my main computer was doing computationally intensive stuff.

      I'd been planning to reformat and rebuild my main computer in half a year or so, and obviously that would require reinstalling as well.

      Three installs? What the hell? I paid good money for this game. I BOUGHT this game. Why am I being treated like a criminal?

      Well, make the crime fit the punishment, I guess. I downloaded the crack. It took about a tenth as long as it had taken to argue with them about copy protection.

      I installed it on my friend's computer. We played it. I didn't bother deleting it. He said he'd probably have bought it if it wasn't for that 3-install limit (he reformats often.)

      I called up my first friend and told her the bad news. She thanked me for the warning, and said she'd changed her mind on buying it.

      I now have the crack stored on a server of mine so I can install it wherever I want.

      That sure helped them defend against piracy, didn't it?

      If you want people to buy your software, there's one and only one way to do it. You can't force them. You can't tell them they must. You simply make them want to. This, however, doesn't make me want to - and therefore it's a failure. Any software developer who thinks they can get around this is living in a state of denial. Accept piracy - and embrace piracy, because it can be a fantastic word-of-mouth network. One percent of a million users is a hell of a lot more sales than one hundred percent of a thousand users.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
  12. ...what a waste of time. by DroopyStonx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If a person knows enough to be using Linux AND this application, chances are they can easily get around the watermark, so what's the point in it?

    I don't understand when companies go off on this tangent and act as if what they're doing will combat piracy. Piracy will always exist. No matter what you do, you can't get rid of it.

    Yeah, it's wrong, but people will do it. Just be thankful EVERYONE isn't doing it. Bottom line: it will not bring back your "lost" sales, and people will have a workaround in a matter of hours.

    There's also a reason why Microsoft more or less turns a blind eye to it - the more people who pirate a particular piece of software just means it's on that many more computers. MS would rather you have a pirated copy of Windows XP than to flat out run Linux simply because it gives them more of a place in the market.

    No one likes to think on the flipside of things, so go on and mod this as troll ;)

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
  13. Marker by mfh · · Score: 4, Funny

    And I was going to the trouble of getting out my magic marker and drawing on the download!

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  14. Re:And who is to blame??? by cleverhandle · · Score: 5, Funny

    So how about the leeches among us start supporting the rare breed of company that shows any interest in Linux on the desktop?

    No joke - somebody mod this fellow up. TG is, by all evidence I've seen, a totally community oriented gig. They let you vote on future developments, send status updates containing at least a modicum of technical detail, provide packages in all sorts of formats, and have their devs man their message boards with reasonable regularity. What the hell more could you ask of a company?

    If you rip off TG, you're ripping off the good guys. Don't even try to tell yourself otherwise.

  15. Trust by Kaseijin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    simply use the gentoo ebuild tools to generate a new MD5 hash based on the .tgz you downloaded... you *DO* trust transgaming's own binaries, dont you??? hmmm??? :)
    You may have been joking, but whoever modded this insightful presumably wasn't. The Portage hash check assures the user that the Cedega tarball isn't really a rootkit uploaded by whoever 0wned TransGaming's server. It would be best if all publishers cryptographically signed their releases, but since most don't, comparing hashes with a trusted third party like Gentoo is a reasonable compromise.
    1. Re:Trust by riprjak · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can assure you I was as surprised as anyone to be modded insightful or interesting... I expected a funny or two.

      For reference people; NEVER do what I suggested to manually change the expected MD5 hash. Kaseijin is dead right in suggesting that the cause of variance may indeed be due to l337 hax0rz pwnZing a server and modding the downloads to infect your system...

      In fact, Kaseijins entire comment is informative, mine was a joke in VERY bad taste.

      Hell, I dont recommend taking my advice at the best of times :)

      err!
      jak

    2. Re:Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is slashdot; you can't underestimate the intelligence of the mods.

      insightful or interesting is mod-speak for "me no understand, but you sound smarts"

  16. As far as I'm concerned... by Ghostgate · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... any action that makes things more difficult / inconvenient / annoying / etc. for legitimate users of a piece of software (or anything else - like an audio CD) is an action that should not be taken.

    When I am using software that I am a legitimate owner of, the last thing I want to do is jump through a million hoops just to prove I'm legit. For example, I'll be the first to admit that when I BUY a PC game, the first thing I do is go looking for a "no CD crack" to download. Why? Because I own the game and don't WANT to be forced to swap CDs all the time, just to constantly prove that I paid for the damn thing. I shouldn't have to. Honestly, it's insulting.

    AFAIK, every form of copy/piracy protection that has ever existed has been cracked, and typically in a relatively short amount of time. The ones doing the pirating don't care - they have come to expect it, and finding out how to crack the software will be widely preferred to forking over the cash anyway. The crackers/warez distributors don't care either - indeed, quite the opposite, as many crackers will love the chance to be the first to crack a new protection scheme. The only ones who care are the legitimate users, because they're the ones who usually suffer.

  17. Re:And who is to blame??? by k8to · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Transgaming is selling a product based on Wine, a totally free software project. TransGaming has added to that codebase, but without contributing most of those additions back to the Wine codebase.

    They have brought value to their product, which is why it is worth any money at all, but they have not really been a team player with the free software community.

    In addition, there have been various sketchy issues, including a promise (unfulfilled) of opening their codebase when they get a bunch of subscribers. They also damaged sales of a native linux port by wine-porting it redundantly (kohan), have used linux-subscriber funds to port games to macintosh instead of linux which were not made available to linux subscribers.

    Now, these are oversimplified descriptions, and I'm not suggesting they are an evil bunch of people. But describing them as "totally community oriented" is simply inaccurate. There is also the contestable issue that they may be helping to prevent the growth of the native Linux games market by diverting demand to windows games, while also providing a poor linux gaming experience (look at the list of fully supported games, it's quite small). This view is not airtight but it's not invalid either.

    In short, they are not the "good guys". They are a business out to make a profit regardless of whether their actions are "good" or "bad".

    --
    -josh
  18. Re:Tis good! by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

    The fact is, it doesn't affect piracy one bit, but now users gotta deal with additional BS. For example, piece together a new PC and put your copy of XP on it. Now, after activation fails, try to convince Microsoft that you destroyed or got rid of the old computer!

    I have actually done this, and there is no problem at all. Ive changed my PC 5 times since I bought the XP license that requires activation, and only on the latest switch did the online activation fail. I rang a 0845 number (UK) and got hold of a very nice girl in a call center. All she asked me was if this installation was a unique install IE I hadnt installed it on other PCs. When I said yes, she reset my activations and gave me the option of activating through her or redoing the online activation, which I chose and was carried out without a problem.

    Yes, anti piracy schemes get cracked, but cars also get broken into, you wouldnt see Ford selling cars without a doorlock. They are there to slow down the casual pirates, not the hardcore people.

  19. Re:Tis good! by wolrahnaes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but cars also get broken into, you wouldnt see Ford selling cars without a doorlock

    The difference is a car owner WANTS the lock to be there. I am glad to take an extra 2 seconds to get my keys out of my pocket if it helps prevent the stuff in my car from being jacked.

    I don't benefit in any way from software activation or CD keys. It is nothing but a hassle when you buy the software. It's easier in many cases to install the cracked version.

    --
    I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  20. Changes by rpdillon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently it is watermarking...I downloaded two copies:

    $tar xvzf cedega1.tgz
    $ls
    cedega1.tgz cedega2.tgz usr
    $mv usr usr1
    $tar xvzf cedgea2.tgz
    $mv usr usr2
    $ls
    cedega1.tgz cedega2.tgz usr1 usr2
    $diff -r usr1 usr2
    $

    'Nuff said. Its just a watermark, not in the actual files. If you do a:

    $diff -rs usr1 usr2

    it'll report that every file is identical, just to verify.

    Then, make an unwatermarked version:

    $mv usr1 usr
    $tar czf cedega_clean.tgz usr

    Sadly, if you compress the *exact* same folder twice with tar czf it will not md5sum the same (try it!). I can't say I know why. So basically, this helps with piracy but not with the verification problem. =( Don't know how to fix the ebuild problem. Anyone that knows more about why the md5sums for two .tgzs of the same data would be different?

    1. Re:Changes by Craig+Ringer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most likely the MD5sums don't match because tar is storing the access times on the files. The access time will change when tar reads the file. To work around it, use the 'noatime' mount option on the FS or pass the appropriate parameters to tar so that it doesn't record atimes or resets them after reading the file.

  21. Official response here by gavriels · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hi all,

    I've posted an official response here:

    http://transgaming.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=400 9# 4009

    Take care,
    -Gav

    --
    Gavriel State, Co-CEO & CTO
    TransGaming Technologies Inc.
    gav@transgaming.com