On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 01:43:32 +0200, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:27:15 +0200, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 16:37:51 +0200, Hisham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:43 AM, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> There has been a proof of concept where a group of people has injected >>>>>> bad packages into a distribution by asking to be a mirror and providing >>>>>> erroneous updates (1). >>>>>> The issue is not that they provided spoofed, hacked or broken packages, >>>>>> which would fail with bad signature (or the user had to add the key to >>>>>> their keyring), but they used old packages which they updated version >>>>>> information for. An example for GoboLinux would be to repack an old >>>>>> version, Foo--1.2--i686.tar.bz2 as Foo--2.3--i686.tar.bz2 and our tools >>>>>> would be fooled to thing that the latter was an update/later version >>>>>> (you would also change the name of the version directory in the tarball). >>>>>> This meant that users that used that "mirror" would get "updates" that >>>>>> wasn't always up to date and even might have security issues. >>>>>> We need to add version information to our packages, any idea on a good >>>>>> scheme for that? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, we just need to add the full path to the FileHash file entries. >>>>> If they are tampered with, FileHash.sig will alert. Fix committed to >>>>> svn. >>>> >>>> I don't think we should use *full* paths, only <program name>/<version>. >>>> People might not have $goboPrograms at /Programs. >>> >>> These people better not use the binary packages, for tricky troubles >>> await them if they do. >>> >> That depends on how they are built. Lucas has made successful builds against >> /System/Index, meaning that the binaries doesn't reference /Programs at all. >> That also means that packages can be placed anywhere, as long as they have >> symlinks in /S/I. One can, already today, install binary packages at any >> prefix and just symlinking them, with none or very little breakage (depends >> on application). I think we should cover these cases, especially as we will >> have them in the future. > > People who are willing to go through this "very little breakage" > should know what they're doing, in which case they can bypass the > check. I never wanted programs to be installed outside of /Programs > (hell, that's why GoboLinux was created in the first place! to end the > proliferation of locations where apps were installed!). If you want to > encourage this behavior, go ahead and revert. > I don't think you're on the wrong track, just that <app>/<version> would suffice and that would also support relocation better. There might be people that has applications on a NFS mount, which would not be supported with the current FileHash implementation. All we need is a record of app name and version, that are signed, somewhere and check them against what we think it is, which we get from parsing the tarball name. -- /Jonas Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
