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

Re: Request for Help: apt 0.6

* Henrique de Moraes Holschuh:

> You still need to deal with key revocation and a new key being needed,
> anyway.  Yearly changes will not make it more difficult, it will make sure
> those codepaths are tested (and used at least once an year).

Right now, it's not codepaths, but system administrators. 8->

I can understand that in an ideal world, there would be a master key
stored off-line which would be used to sign (and revoke) the release
keys.  In case of a compromise, the master key can be used to
introduce a new release key (without intervention by the system

But I doubt this is really necessary.  If the release key is
compromised, a DSA would have to be released anyway.  This advisory
would include the necessary steps to remove the compromised key from
the system.  Do we really need to automate this?

You could even argue that the scheme without a master key is more
secure because the number of trusted parties is smaller, and no one
can introduce a new release key in a covert manner.  It boils down to
what we are trying to secure.  AFAICS, the main risks are network
layer attacks on the user and mirror breaches.  Easy recovery from a
compromised archive infrastructure shouldn't be a top priority, and it
might well be impossible if the attack was successful (the "single
point of ownership" problem).

Reply to: