Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Miroslav Rovis <miro.rovis@××××××××××××××.hr>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] SHA-1 has just been broken
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 12:45:58
Message-Id: 20170227124238.GC2732@g0n.xdwgrp
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] SHA-1 has just been broken by R0b0t1
1 On 170226-14:32-0600, R0b0t1 wrote:
2 > On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Miroslav Rovis
3 > <miro.rovis@××××××××××××××.hr> wrote:
4 > > On 170225-21:34-0600, R0b0t1 wrote:
5 > >> On Saturday, February 25, 2017, Miroslav Rovis <miro.rovis@××××××××××××××.hr>
6 > >> wrote:
7 > >> >
8 > >> https://security.googleblog.com/2017/02/announcing-first-sha1-collision.html
9 > > ...
10 > >>
11 ...
12 > >> Aside:
13 > >> http://ecrypt-eu.blogspot.com/2015/11/break-dozen-secret-keys-get-million.html
14 > >
15 > > Too technical for me. Too little learning gain for too much mumbo-jumbo noise, at this
16 > > stage of my understanding of crypto, for me.
17 >
18 > My apologies. The useful part of the link is really the title. It
19 > explains how, if you *do* successfully break a given key, you have
20 > necessarily broken millions of them - you are just unsure if they are
21 > currently in use. The wise option is then to record every key
22 > combination you brute force in the hope that someone will start using
23 > it in the future.
24 I did figure that much out. But all of it useful... for true
25 cryptographers. It's so appealing, but so distant yet (or forever, where
26 can one find the time to learn that much?).
27 > >
28 > > But, when we talk crypto being broken, I can help thinking of other
29 I meant:
30 But, when we talk crypto being broken, I can't help thinking of other
31 ( ... can't ... )
32 > > threats to Gentoo and other FOSS GNU Linux that I fear are perfectly
33 > > feasible (for the resourceful subjects)
34 ( And also, the Message-ID given in my email can only be found by
35 subcribers to the gentoo-dev mailing list, not gentoo-user ML. )
36 > > Gentoo distro is increasingly served the insecure way, IMO, that is: via
37 > > git, without the repositories being, for end users, PGP-verifiable.
38 > >
39 > > And via a new private big business, the Github. Giving over all users to
40 > > big Github brother.
41 > >
42 > > And, in the trasition all the history got lost. Git started remembering
43 > > only from 2015.
44 > >
45 > > I have asked a question about getting git-served repository verifiable
46 > > for end users, but I didn't get any replies:
47 > >
48 >
49 > This is something I was concerned about myself, especially since the
50 > bare git protocol that most users access the repository from, even if
51 > it is the repository hosted by the Gentoo Foundation, is insecure. Git
52 > access via SSH or HTTPS *is* secure but is not implemented - I'm not
53 > sure why, as they've purchased a "real" certificate and the Git
54 > subdomain may already be covered by it.
55 >
56 And there's even no need purchasing certs any more. LetsEncrypt
57 cetrificates are free in both some GNU/GNU-compatible way, and the
58 free-of-charge way.
59
60 But a repository can also really be verifiable only if it is PGP-signed
61 (or some other cryptro-verifiable-way signed). So HTTPS alone does not
62 do it.
63
64 > Well, maybe someone will noticed this message. Or not.
65 >
66 > R0b0t1.
67 >
68
69 I hope too.
70
71 Because it's depressing how large swathes of FOSS are getting under
72 control of big business and to some extent, very minor here, but not
73 negligeable, actually covertly privatized...
74
75 I can't help but remind ( I wrote about it in:
76 GUI-less (non-dbus) virt-manager (to run Tails in Gentoo)
77 https://lists.gt.net/gentoo/user/321797
78 Message-ID: <20170111205529.GB28353@×××.xdwgrp>
79 ) how big dirty stingy Schmoogle the Schmoog treats Gentoo which it uses
80 for its CoreOS
81 [[ important thing there to find is the link to:
82 Gentoo Foundation, background and status report Robin Johnson
83 https://youtu.be/S3bmXVbxMgE
84 and if a reader don't get to the same conclusion about the Schmoog that
85 I arrived at, then the reader might be missing something ]]
86
87 Ah, as far as distribution verifiability, I guess emerge-webrsync and
88 PGP-signed portage trees functionality needs to be kept forever, then...
89
90 Thanks for replying!
91 (
92 BTW, about the link, in the first email, to my message to secure-os ML,
93 one of the secure-os folks kindly confirmed, but in a private message,
94 that they were considering my email...
95 )
96
97 Sad how this topic, or the other linked in my first mail, to the
98 gentoo-dev ML, didn't attract more discussion... It can't be too late to
99 fix these issues...
100
101 Regards!
102
103 --
104 Miroslav Rovis
105 Zagreb, Croatia
106 https://www.CroatiaFidelis.hr

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature