Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 01:52:01 +0300 (MSK) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> Cc: Vsevolod Stakhov <vsevolod@highsecure.ru>, freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Intrusion Detection using pkg? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1604200146470.34198@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <5714BE83.1060909@FreeBSD.org> References: <d9571b48-bea2-a791-c536-af9549166155@freebsd.org> <5714BA56.50704@highsecure.ru> <5714BE83.1060909@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Matthew Seaman wrote: [snip] > > 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... Well, I suppose we have usual problem here: "doing security well is a pain, and doing it bad is simple and lead to false sense of security" (smilies at will) For all years being a system admin and/or architect I'm thinking about non-controversal (and useful) model of PKI or something similar, but still failed :( Which set of data are we going to protect? And how to protect the point for protection (both reliably and useful for day-to-day procedures)? Well, I also suppose this could be more a matter for -security@ also... -- Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: marck@FreeBSD.org ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1604200146470.34198>