| 1 |
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 12:07:46 +0000 |
| 2 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:12:07 -0800 (PST), Eric Bohn wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Using Portage you're putting yourself at the mercy of any Joe Schmoe |
| 7 |
> > with a proxy connection to a Gentoo server that wants to compromise |
| 8 |
> > your machine. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> How so? They'd have to get a compromised source tarball on the |
| 11 |
> distfiles mirrors and a hacked ebuild into the CVS tree. Getting a |
| 12 |
> hacked ebuild on the servers isn't enough, it would be replaced in no |
| 13 |
> more than fifteen minutes. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Why is this easier than getting a compromised RPM onto a Red Hat or |
| 16 |
> SUSE server? |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
Hi Neil, |
| 20 |
It'll be the same when the 'new' Manifest2 format is fully implemented. |
| 21 |
Haven't checked but you need at least ebuild&eclass GPG-signing, etc. |
| 22 |
There was a discussion (on some Gentoo ML, IIRC 'security') a year or |
| 23 |
more ago, some very ancient Bug was mentioned. |
| 24 |
RPMs are signed (but check this again), BTW debs are too. |
| 25 |
The work is going on this, but i've no info about the progress made. |
| 26 |
HTH. Rumen |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives