| 1 |
What I don't understand then is the problem with security of ebuilds. If we |
| 2 |
can validate that the MD5 hash is consistent with the published hash, then |
| 3 |
the package would be considered secure and case is effectively closed? |
| 4 |
Right? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
----- Original Message ----- |
| 8 |
From: "Heikki Levanto" <heikki@×××.dk> |
| 9 |
To: <gentoo-security@l.g.o> |
| 10 |
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 1:01 AM |
| 11 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] Thoughts on Package Security |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> On Mon, 2004-02-16 at 22:20, Brian Klauss wrote: |
| 15 |
> > Why not take package security one step deeper to ensure the validity |
| 16 |
> > of every ebuild and source-tree? |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Instead of relying upon a master hash of the compressed package, |
| 19 |
> > create a hash for each source file, documentation, makefile, etc. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Sorry, I don't see what that would give. If the md5 of the compressed |
| 22 |
> archive is fine, then we know already that it has not been tampered |
| 23 |
> with. Ergo, all contained files are fine. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> (except for the theoretical possibility of md5-sum collision, which is |
| 26 |
> unlikely to an astronomical degree, and not worth worrying about in real |
| 27 |
> world) |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Heikki |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> -- |
| 32 |
> Heikki Levanto LSD - Levanto Software Development <heikki@×××.dk> |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> -- |
| 36 |
> gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives