Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: Peter Simons <simons@××××.to>
To: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-security] Re: Gentoo Portage Attack Tree
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:21:48
Message-Id: 874qk0pmec.fsf@peti.cryp.to
In Reply to: [gentoo-security] Gentoo Portage Attack Tree by "Ervin Németh"
1 Ervin Németh writes:
2
3 > How about this: the developers have to sign the files
4 > they upload, but do this before they upload them?
5
6 I believe that it is practically unfeasible to verify the
7 signatures of dozens of people which are spread over dozens
8 of different directories. By building the signatures into
9 Portage only, you require the user to have a working Gentoo
10 system before he can verify he has a _real_ Gentoo system.
11 When Portage runs the checks, it is too late. You have to be
12 able to verify the authenticity of your downloaded files
13 before you start the first executable you've downloaded.
14 That's why I am in favor of a simple, ordinary text file
15 which is GPG-signed and contains ordinary hashes.
16
17 Peter
18
19
20 --
21 gentoo-security@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-security] Re: Gentoo Portage Attack Tree Ed Grimm <paranoid@××××××××××××××××××××××.org>