Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: Marc Ballarin <Ballarin.Marc@×××.de>
To: Chris Frey <cdfrey@×××××××××.ca>
Cc: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] Re: Is anybody else worried about this? (was: Trojan for Gentoo, part 2)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:04:30
Message-Id: 20041107190442.373632f7.Ballarin.Marc@gmx.de
In Reply to: [gentoo-security] Re: Is anybody else worried about this? (was: Trojan for Gentoo, part 2) by Chris Frey
1 On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:01:35 -0500
2 Chris Frey <cdfrey@×××××××××.ca> wrote:
3
4 > You don't. But that's like saying there's no point in closing the front
5 > door since the bedroom window might be open. If the front door is
6 > closed and locked, then at least we can pay more attention to the open
7 > window.
8
9 But you have not achieved more security. That is the point. If a
10 distributor promises package integrity through signatures, they are
11 lying. It is like showing of the locked front door without mentioning the
12 open bedroom window.
13
14 OTOH: If you are responsible for the front door's security, you should
15 close it, of course. This is why Gentoo *should* use signatures.
16 However, it is wrong to excpect or even promise a great improvement in
17 security through this measure.
18
19 >
20 > Plus, the glibc ebuild maintainer should be tracking the changes. He
21 > knows what's going on in glibc land, he knows the build process, he
22 > should be in touch with the main developers, and he should be reading
23 > the diffs.
24
25 This might work for glibc (Don't know, really.). But it certainly won't
26 work for many other packages. All the developer can do here is trust the
27 guy at the bedroom window - just to stay with that example.
28
29 >
30 > If he doesn't have the time or skill to do that, he can at least compare
31 > against the work of people who do, such as the source packages of Debian
32 > or Fedora Core. It is pretty easy to do a diff.
33
34 And Debian will compare against Gentoo, while Redhat compares gainst Suse,
35 who in turn...
36
37 My point being: Manipulations can be subtle, escpecially if they are
38 carefully planned. Many eys are necessary to spot them. Manipulations at a
39 low-level (a projects CVS-server) could easily propagate to many distros.
40 So it comes down to either check for yourself or trust the upstream
41 developers and their signatures and checksums.
42
43 If you use signatures to verify a package, you have to understand exactly
44 what guarantees are given.
45
46 This is exactly one thing:
47 The package or ebuild is identical to the version the Gentoo developer
48 signed, provided that his workstation has not been compromised.
49
50 Nothing else is guaranteed.
51
52 The reason signing still makes sense is numbers and probability. There are
53 only few developer machines, they are mostly unknown to attackers and are
54 hopefully not used as servers.
55
56 rsync mirrors, otoh, are many, well known and constantly exposed to the
57 internet.
58
59 Regards
60
61 --
62 gentoo-security@g.o mailing list

Replies