Re: Packages and signatures

[Goswin Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de>]

>>>>> " " == s Lichtmaier <Nicol> writes:

    >> The problem with signing packages is that you can't trust a
    >> computer to do it for obvious reasons (like
    >> building/installation of packages being done as root).

     >  That's nonsense. Security important points in a process aren't
     > created by adding a signature there. A key automatically used
     > by ftp-master.debian.org would be as secure as the process of
     > building packages in that machine is now, not more secure, not
     > less secure.  Again with diferent words: A key used by
     > "dinstall" (or whatever its name is now) will have the same
     > degree of security/trust that packages that are now built with
     > it.

     >  It's sad that this missconception has prevented Debian from
     > using signed packages for so long.

The point is that it would give no extra security atop of the trust
you can have in the autobuilders anyway.

In fact, it would give most people a false security. They would think
that packages are save just because they are signed. Without the
signature people are more aware that whats in the box might not whats
written on the outside.

MfG
        Goswin