Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:01:23 +0100
From:      Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@highsecure.ru>, freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Intrusion Detection using pkg?
Message-ID:  <5714BE83.1060909@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <5714BA56.50704@highsecure.ru>
References:  <d9571b48-bea2-a791-c536-af9549166155@freebsd.org> <5714BA56.50704@highsecure.ru>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--e2uI841a4XCXr9hQs1Kkn6Qk0KRqLtKxS
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="FQdHS3W1c6IwwnGdVbUFak8vkFVg6BpSj"
From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org>
To: Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@highsecure.ru>, freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <5714BE83.1060909@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Intrusion Detection using pkg?
References: <d9571b48-bea2-a791-c536-af9549166155@freebsd.org>
 <5714BA56.50704@highsecure.ru>
In-Reply-To: <5714BA56.50704@highsecure.ru>

--FQdHS3W1c6IwwnGdVbUFak8vkFVg6BpSj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2016/04/18 11:43, Vsevolod Stakhov wrote:
> I don't like this idea: if an attacker has enough power to modify files=

> on FS why he or she cannot do the same for checksums in pkg database? W=
e
> need digital signatures and password protected private key. Then a user=

> can type something like:

Uh, yes.  That's pretty much exactly what I'm suggesting.

> pkg sign <- enter private key password
>=20
> followed by:
>=20
> pkg sign --check to verify the existing checksums

This user interface would work for me.

> Unfortunately, after years of useless discussion we have no sane
> signatures scheme in pkg, and I have no desire to continue these
> discussions I'm afraid.

I believe the current package signature stuff serves its purpose, which
is to verify that the package tarball in question originated from an
identified and trusted source and hasn't subsequently been tampered
with.  Which is fine, but there's a definite use-case for going further..=
=2E

	Cheers,

	Matthew



--FQdHS3W1c6IwwnGdVbUFak8vkFVg6BpSj--

--e2uI841a4XCXr9hQs1Kkn6Qk0KRqLtKxS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org
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=wLgh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--e2uI841a4XCXr9hQs1Kkn6Qk0KRqLtKxS--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5714BE83.1060909>