IMPORTANT - Ubuntu 16.04.2 ISO may be compromised

>>60009541
May have been corrupted in the process

Try the torrent and if that's also different then it could've been compromised

>>60009564
Oh fuck saw that you dled the torrent

Try the direct download and check the date of the torrent

This is the one with different sha256 sum
ubuntu-16.04.2-desktop-amd64.iso.torrent 2017-02-16 23:57
http://releases.ubuntu.com/16.04/ubuntu-16.04.2-desktop-amd64.iso.torrent

>>60009615
Afaik the BitTorrent protocol is supposed to hash check each separate piece but something's obv gone wrong since the torrent is too old to have been replaced.

Problem is on your end, install gentoo

>>60009541
One's 32-bit the other 64-bit.

>>60009740
No you nigger

Get the direct dl and check that

>>60009756
the sha256 don't match you autist I'm downloading the torrent and then I'll download from a mirror

>>60009767
I deleted the image because of personal info

>>60009767
seriously delete this

>>60009779
?? all the info is still there

>>60009541
Windows 10 doesn't have this problem

>>60009805
the iso from direct download and from torrent is the same you autist

>>60009805
>they keep that more up-to-date than the torrents
The hash should still match. They don't re-release without version numbering, ever (e.g. 16.04.2 wouldn't be release twice, it would be *4.3, etc).

>>60009832
I know you are obsessed with having personal info and leaking, etc but this is a iso compromise
>b-but I did it for the lol
how this is not reddit 2.0?
The level of people here just check this thread there are two people thinking they "update" the .iso with the same filename and same SHA256.

>>60009863
Deep breaths anon

>>60009863
I am verifying your claim myself, but I seriously doubt a compromised ISO would be seeded with nobody aware.

>>60009805
>they keep that more up-to-date than the torrents

>>60009882
>I am verifying your claim myself
>I think they released the same iso with different hash
embarrassing.

>>60009898
I never said that, Lucas.

OP is right, hashes on both i386 and amd64 torrents don't match, I haven't downloaded from the FTP or their site though
It wouldn't surprise me of this was Canonical incompetency and not a compromised ISO
>>60009882
Most people who download Ubuntu wouldn't check their downloads

>>60009541
Install Gentoo.

>>60009938
What about signing keys? I have piss poor internet so still a ways to go

>>60009927
>I was just pretending to be a retard

>>60009767
85.238.113.251

File: Screenshot_2017-04-21_19-27-08.png (49KB, 562x338px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 562x338px

>>60009938
>OP is right, hashes on both i386 and amd64 torrents don't match
You're both wrong, and retarded or shitposting (aka still retarded).
Pic related, hashes match sighing key, and sha256 matches amd64 ISO, meaning not compromised unless their private keys are.

>>60010065
>sha256 matches amd64 ISO
not the torrent one

>>60010098

$ sha256sum -c SHA256SUMS
ubuntu-16.04.2-desktop-amd64.iso: OK

it's Linux mint infected iso episode all over again

Don't trust

>>60010065
>>60010140

He is CIAnigger xD

File: 4.png (185KB, 753x382px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 753x382px

>>60010140

>>60010166

Canonical is finished and bankrupt!

>>60010599
You forgot to censor your username in the first line.

>>60010599
>evading ban
that's not how it works anon

>>60010177
haha XDdDDDadD lmao nice meme xDD