Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upqubes-builder-debian - replace local key creation with trusted=yes #1020
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
nrgaway
Jun 3, 2015
On 3 June 2015 at 10:11, Patrick Schleizer notifications@github.com wrote:
About
https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-builder-debian/blob/cf29fccd63c1e8e00819db09d8eb1c280a61ade3/prepare-chroot-debian#L135-143
https://github.com/QubesOS/qubes-builder-debian/blob/master/prepare-chroot-qubuntu#L118-126
Key-Type: RSA
Key-Length: 1024This is a weak key. Even if it's just a local key and perfectly secure...
It's a source for FUD. Fear, uncertainty, doubt. And from a marketing
perspective, FUD can kill a project. I don't want to distract discussion of
real security issues with such easy-to-confuse-easy-to-fix false-positives.Can you please use deb [trusted=yes] rather than local signing key for
local apt repository? I.e.deb file:/tmp/qubes-deb $DEBIANVERSION main
-->
deb [trusted=yes] file:/tmp/qubes-deb $DEBIANVERSION main
and removing the local key creation should do. Also less code and more
elegant.(Similar to https://phabricator.whonix.org/T275#3897.) (@nrgaway
https://github.com/nrgaway)I personally do not see how this can create FUD since as you noted the keys
are created for local installation of packages during initial template
creation and not for distribution purposes. Wouldn't having no key at all
provide the same concerns?
Anyway, if @marmarek feels this should be changed could we not just
increase the key size to minimize code changes?
nrgaway
commented
Jun 3, 2015
|
On 3 June 2015 at 10:11, Patrick Schleizer notifications@github.com wrote:
Anyway, if @marmarek feels this should be changed could we not just |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
adrelanos
Jun 3, 2015
Member
FUD is created by mechanical, knee-jerk like analysis and outrage along very simple thought lines "weak key -> insecure", conclude "Qubes using weak key -> insecure", action "outrage". Thoughts like "just locally used" are more sophisticated.
Increasing the key size increases build time, because creating a bigger key takes longer.
Using a key for a locally stored repository isn't required, since there is trusted=yes.
Using no key at all wouldn't raise any concerns. The trusted=yes points to a local resource, not much room to mess up.
Seems like this is something like "minimize code changes" vs "minimize code size and complexity".
|
FUD is created by mechanical, knee-jerk like analysis and outrage along very simple thought lines "weak key -> insecure", conclude "Qubes using weak key -> insecure", action "outrage". Thoughts like "just locally used" are more sophisticated. Increasing the key size increases build time, because creating a bigger key takes longer. Using a key for a locally stored repository isn't required, since there is Using no key at all wouldn't raise any concerns. The trusted=yes points to a local resource, not much room to mess up. Seems like this is something like "minimize code changes" vs "minimize code size and complexity". |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
marmarek
Jun 3, 2015
Member
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 07:40:11AM -0700, nrgaway wrote:
Anyway, if @marmarek feels this should be changed could we not just
increase the key size to minimize code changes?
Yes, I think "[trusted=yes]" is much better solution. Actually I was
looking for something like that but haven't found - this is why created
some local key.
Best Regards,
Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
Invisible Things Lab
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
|
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 07:40:11AM -0700, nrgaway wrote:
Yes, I think "[trusted=yes]" is much better solution. Actually I was Best Regards, |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
nrgaway
commented
Jun 3, 2015
|
Ok, I will make the changes then :)
|
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
adrelanos
Jun 3, 2015
Member
|
Great.
The removal of this temporary key will therefore also become unnecessary.
|
marmarek
added
enhancement
C: builder
P: major
labels
Jun 9, 2015
marmarek
added this to the Release 3.0 milestone
Jun 9, 2015
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
|
Looks like this was implemented? Closeable? |
This comment has been minimized.
Show comment
Hide comment
This comment has been minimized.
nrgaway
Jun 24, 2015
On 23 June 2015 at 21:07, Patrick Schleizer notifications@github.com
wrote:
Looks like this was implemented?
- marmarek/qubes-builder-debian#11
marmarek/qubes-builder-debian#11- marmarek/qubes-builder-debian@7912584
marmarek/qubes-builder-debian@7912584Closeable?
Yes
nrgaway
commented
Jun 24, 2015
|
On 23 June 2015 at 21:07, Patrick Schleizer notifications@github.com
Yes |
adrelanos commentedJun 3, 2015
About
This is a weak key. Even if it's just a local key and perfectly secure... It's a source for FUD. Fear, uncertainty, doubt. And from a marketing perspective, FUD can kill a project. I don't want to distract discussion of real security issues with such easy-to-confuse-easy-to-fix false-positives.
Can you please use deb
[trusted=yes]rather than local signing key for local apt repository? I.e.-->
and removing the local key creation should do. Also less code and more elegant.
(Similar to https://phabricator.whonix.org/T275#3897.) (@nrgaway)