All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christian Rebischke <Chris.Rebischke@archlinux.org>
To: Paul Moore <paul@paul-moore.com>
Cc: linux-audit@redhat.com
Subject: Re: signed tarballs
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 23:22:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170413212203.GB19785@motoko> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHC9VhSyZG2CKZAX=ZYpiMbyDqbLQKhm+3-Vm1WJkL0CjRvhyA@mail.gmail.com>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1923 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 05:05:36PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> Unless Steve has exclusive administrative access to people.redhat.com
> (I think it is safe to say he does not, but correct me if I'm wrong
> Steve <b>) you can't trust an unsigned checksum regardless of how
> strong the https cert/crypto as the web admin could still tamper with
> the data.

We are not only talking about the web admin. We live in times where
governments can easily tamper such data and the documents from snowden
and some other whistleblowers prove that they did stuff like this.

The only way to make sure that the tarball is the original tarball is
with a signature from Steve grubbs gpg-key. This would ensure that steve
has checked the content.

Just imagine the following scenario:

1. New audit version
2. Steve uploads the new version with new hash to the webserver.

3. Let's imagine that hackers would MITM my connection or modify the
server content. They could deploy a new tarball and generate a new
checksum for it, because SHA256 is just *one* factor. Everyone who would
download the new tarball would check against the new malicious hash.

This is a valid attack scenario.. This scenario could only be prevent by
using signed tarballs. Because people like me and other distribution
maintainers would have Steves pubkey. If somebody would modify the
tarball he would need Steves pubkey. And this is much more difficult
than just MITM the connection or tampering the data on the webserver.

With a signed tarball the attacker would have following problems:

1. the attacker can't deploy a malicious tarball without signature,
because this would make clear that the tarball is malicious.
2. if the attacker would generate an own signature for the maliciois
tarball, people who verify the tarball would get a warning because the
key is unknown and not part of steves keyring.

I hope this email is clearer...

Thanks for reading.



[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]



  parent reply	other threads:[~2017-04-13 21:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-06 23:31 signed tarballs Christian Rebischke
2017-04-07  1:27 ` William Roberts
2017-04-07 23:41   ` Christian Rebischke
2017-04-07 23:52     ` William Roberts
2017-04-08 12:53 ` Paul Moore
2017-04-10 18:51   ` Steve Grubb
2017-04-10 18:35 ` Steve Grubb
2017-04-11 10:44   ` Christian Rebischke
2017-04-11 14:03     ` Steve Grubb
2017-04-13 20:28       ` Christian Rebischke
2017-04-13 20:30         ` William Roberts
2017-04-13 20:43           ` Steve Grubb
2017-04-13 20:56           ` Christian Rebischke
2017-04-13 21:00             ` William Roberts
2017-04-13 21:05               ` Paul Moore
2017-04-13 21:08                 ` William Roberts
2017-04-13 21:17                   ` Paul Moore
2017-04-13 22:39                     ` William Roberts
2017-04-13 21:22                 ` Christian Rebischke [this message]
2017-04-13 22:45                   ` William Roberts
2017-04-13 23:17                     ` Steve Grubb
2017-04-13 22:25                 ` Steve Grubb
2017-04-14 13:06                   ` Paul Moore
2017-04-14 13:38                     ` Steve Grubb
2017-04-14 23:03                       ` Christian Rebischke

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170413212203.GB19785@motoko \
    --to=chris.rebischke@archlinux.org \
    --cc=linux-audit@redhat.com \
    --cc=paul@paul-moore.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.