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

Re: leaks in our only-signed-software fortress



On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 15:49:30 +0000, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 16:25:20 +0200
> Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net> wrote:
> 
> > Am 18.02.2012 14:40, schrieb Neil Williams:
> > >> I think as a start it should be made a policy that any "wrapper" 
> > >> package that
> > >> downloads code from the net must at least do a strong checksum check 
> > >> on the
> > >> downloaded code.
> > > Not possible to enforce as a 'MUST' because, by definition, 
> > > third-party
> > > websites will not provide checksums for every possible download
> > > mechanism.
> > 
> > Well it's still possible then,... the maintainer can just calculate 
> > sums on his own.
> 
> Against what? The source is only downloaded from upstream once per
> upstream release, what is there to check against?

He's talking about stuff like flash-nonfree (or whatever) where we ship
a wrapper that wgets the actual tarball for you from the distributor,
and checks the checksum of whatever it ends up with.

The maintainer can grab a copy, checksum it (perhaps if paranoid do the
download from elsewhere on a different day, make sure the checksums
match), and then sign a package containing the checksum that he
generated to ensure that everyone that installs the package gets the
same tarball, or sees an error message.

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]    http://www.hands.com/
|-|  HANDS.COM Ltd.                    http://www.uk.debian.org/
|(|  10 Onslow Gardens, South Woodford, London  E18 1NE  ENGLAND

Attachment: pgp5pywpDXgjb.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: