[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor
From: |
Alexandre Oliva |
Subject: |
Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor |
Date: |
Sat, 30 Mar 2024 21:00:19 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) |
On Mar 30, 2024, Eric Gallager <egall@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote:
> automake's `distcheck` target, whose entire purpose is to make it
> easier to verify that a distribution tarball can be rebuilt from
> itself and contains all the things it ought to contain.
> Recommending the `distcheck` target to a wider variety of users would
> help more projects catch mismatches between things a distribution
> tarball is supposed to contain, and things that it isn't. This would
> be a win for security and could help make it easier to catch future
> possible bad actors trying to pull a similar trick. What do people
> think?
Bluntly, I don't think it would help with security. The attacker would
just have to disable or adjust the distcheck target to seemingly pass.
Relying on something in a code repository to tell whether the repository
is secure is akin to tying a dog with sausage.
For security proper, the verification code needs to be held elsewhere,
not compromisable along with the thing it's supposed to verify.
Analogously, you don't run a rootkit checker on the system that's
potentially compromised, because the rootkit may hide itself; you boot
off secure media and then use the tools in it to look for the rootkit in
the potentially-compromised system, *without* handing control over to
it.
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free Software Activist GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but
very few check the facts. Think Assange & Stallman. The empires strike back
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, (continued)
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, dherring, 2024/03/30
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Jacob Bachmeyer, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Jose E. Marchesi, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Jacob Bachmeyer, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Eric Gallager, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Russ Allbery, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Eric Gallager, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Peter Johansson, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Tomas Volf, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Jacob Bachmeyer, 2024/03/31
Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor,
Alexandre Oliva <=
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Bob Friesenhahn, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Bruno Haible, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Bob Friesenhahn, 2024/03/31
- Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2024/03/31
Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2024/03/31
Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor, Jacob Bachmeyer, 2024/03/31