[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Revival of the signed debs discussion



On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 02:02:19PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 06:05:44PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:
> > > Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > >> > dpkg that it is downgrading the package, and a clever attacker might
> > >> > avoid even that.
> 
> > >> How would you avoid it?
> 
> > > Make the replacement package really be a different package entirely, of
> > > a higher version than the package it purports to replace.
> 
> > > I think aj had some more examples along these lines the last time this
> > > came up.
> 
> > I still don't understand how you change the version number (or the
> > package-name) without breaking the signature.
> 
> You change the contents of the compromised Packages file, so that 
> 
> Package: bash
> Essential: yes
> Priority: required
> Section: base
> Architecture: i386
> Version: 2.05b-12
> 
> is accompanied by
> 
> Filename: pool/main/b/bash/vulnerable-ident-server_1.0-1_i386.deb

that information is already embedded in the .deb. Try "dpkg --control
foo.deb; cd DEBIAN; ls".

apt should sanity-check whether that information matches the information
it already has (from, e.g., the Packages file). If not, it should scream
as loud as possible.

-- 
Wouter Verhelst
Debian GNU/Linux -- http://www.debian.org
Nederlandstalige Linux-documentatie -- http://nl.linux.org
"Stop breathing down my neck." "My breathing is merely a simulation."
"So is my neck, stop it anyway!"
  -- Voyager's EMH versus the Prometheus' EMH, stardate 51462.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: