Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] 2004.1 will not include a secure portage.
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 13:14:30
Message-Id: 200403271414.24414.pauldv@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] 2004.1 will not include a secure portage. by Andrew Cowie
1 On Saturday 27 March 2004 04:28, Andrew Cowie wrote:
2 > On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 16:07, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
3 > > c) for each signature in .secure/*.asc check whether its in the ACL
4 > > list, then call `gpg --verify .secure/sig.asc .secure/hash` to verify it.
5 > > We can set auto-key-retrieve in case we don't already have the key.
6 >
7 > Something that I've been trying to figure out in this whole discussion
8 > of rapidly expiring keys is what happens to machines that don't have
9 > at-will access to the public internet:
10 >
11 > .. a disconnected machine (like a laptop) who is away from the internet
12 > for days or weeks at a time, or
13
14 At the moment of syncing a timestamp is stored which is used for determining
15 the validity of the key. The condition for this to work is that the local
16 machine is not compromised. But if it were, all odds were of anyway.
17
18 > .. a server node that doesn't get its packages from the net at all, but
19 > rather is part of a production farm which gets its updates from some
20 > local local mirror/build machine only when the site administrators make
21 > a new local set of packages available to that server farm.
22
23 The timestamp needs to be made available to the client machines, or (more
24 likely) the server provides it's own list of allowed keys possibly including
25 local administrators' keys. A local list requires a configuration option that
26 specifies an alternative key that can override the gentoo provided
27 signatures.
28
29 > What happens in those scenarios?
30
31 See above
32
33 Paul
34
35 --
36 Paul de Vrieze
37 Gentoo Developer
38 Mail: pauldv@g.o
39 Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net