Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: Chris Frey <cdfrey@×××××××××.ca>
To: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-security] Re: Is anybody else worried about this? (was: Trojan for Gentoo, part 2)
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 17:01:59
Message-Id: 20041107120135.C9045@netdirect.ca
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-security] Is anybody else worried about this? (was: Trojan for Gentoo, part 2) by Kurt Lieber
1 On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 03:40:46PM +0000, Kurt Lieber wrote:
2 > As another poster already noted, of course it is, but it's not specific to
3 > Gentoo. What happens if the server hosting the master repository of glibc
4 > gets compromised? How do you know that hasn't already happened and there's
5 > back doors galore on your machine right now? That may seem like a
6 > smart-ass question, but stop for a moment and consider it seriously. How
7 > do you *KNOW* that there are no backdoors in the version of glibc on your
8 > computer right now?
9
10 You don't. But that's like saying there's no point in closing the front
11 door since the bedroom window might be open. If the front door is closed
12 and locked, then at least we can pay more attention to the open window.
13
14 Plus, the glibc ebuild maintainer should be tracking the changes. He knows
15 what's going on in glibc land, he knows the build process, he should be
16 in touch with the main developers, and he should be reading the diffs.
17
18 If he doesn't have the time or skill to do that, he can at least compare
19 against the work of people who do, such as the source packages of Debian
20 or Fedora Core. It is pretty easy to do a diff.
21
22 Plus #2: both the glibc tarballs and the source packages of other distros
23 are signed. The glibc maintainer should have all those signatures on hand,
24 if needed, and be verifying them all before he puts the entire Gentoo
25 user base at risk.
26
27 I think this point is a red herring.
28
29 > > (2) Are there plans for getting it fixed?
30 >
31 > We already implemented a major change nearly a year ago by moving
32 > 'rsync.gentoo.org' onto servers that are managed by the Gentoo team.
33 > Previously, we relied on community mirrors which worked well, but didn't
34 > allow us to ensure the servers were all held to the same high security
35 > standard.
36
37 Excellent.
38
39 > We've also taken a number of other steps to mitigate this type of exposure
40 > including getting GPG signing into portage and the creation of an auditing
41 > project which reviews the ebuilds and code used in our distribution.
42
43 Fantastic.
44
45 > > I have read some of the material Alexander hyper-linked to
46 > > and, frankly, most of it is outright frightening.
47 >
48 > Then you should immediately unplug your computer from the internet. The
49 > minute you jack in, you're accepting some level of risk. That's just the
50 > nature of the beast.
51
52 That's rather condescending.
53
54 I would instead recommend that he compare Gentoo to other distros that take
55 package signing more seriously. It may be that the features and benefits
56 of a source-based distro like Gentoo outweigh the need for signed ebuilds,
57 like it does for me on one of my machines. But it also may mean that
58 some machines require the security and peace of mind of another distro's
59 signing practices and verification policies. Other machines I admin
60 fall into this category as well.
61
62 - Chris
63
64
65 --
66 gentoo-security@g.o mailing list

Replies