What changed, and why it matters
This commit fixes two typos in user-facing documentation. The instructions for verifying a downloaded file incorrectly included '.txt' in the filenames of the signature and checksum files. The patch removes '.txt' so the commands match the actual filenames produced by the project. There is no code change and no security vulnerability.
No security action needed. The documentation correction can be merged as-is.
Security signals we found
No strong security signals were identified.
Evidence from the diff
The diff updates docs/getting-started/installing/from-gui/verify-download.en.md. It changes the GPG verification command from gpg --verify {{latest_installer_sha}}.txt.sig to gpg --verify {{latest_installer_sha}}.sig, and the SHA256 checksum command from sha256sum --check {{latest_installer_sha}}.txt to sha256sum --check {{latest_installer_sha}}. This is a documentation-only correction of filename extensions; it does not alter any cryptographic logic, build process, or executable code.
Changed components
docs/getting-started/installing/from-gui/verify-download.en.mdInspect captured patch +2 / −2
diff --git a/docs/getting-started/installing/from-gui/verify-download.en.md b/docs/getting-started/installing/from-gui/verify-download.en.md
index e361645..68d2f9e 100644
--- a/docs/getting-started/installing/from-gui/verify-download.en.md
+++ b/docs/getting-started/installing/from-gui/verify-download.en.md
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ gpg --keyserver {{latest_installer_keyserver}} --recv-keys {{latest_installer_ke
Then, to verify yourself, run this:
```bash
-gpg --verify {{latest_installer_sha}}.txt.sig
+gpg --verify {{latest_installer_sha}}.sig
```
**Windows**
@@ -40,7 +40,7 @@ is authentic, we can proceed with the integrity check in your `bash`/`zsh` termi
**Linux / MacOS**
```bash
-sha256sum --check {{latest_installer_sha}}.txt
+sha256sum --check {{latest_installer_sha}}
```
**Windows**
Why this scored 15/100
Community notes
Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.
The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.