From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Joseph Gay Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: convenient digital signing for el files and snippets Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 10:27:14 -0600 Message-ID: <87bp1k2ra5.fsf@geneva.hpsy.me> References: <87k4g83jr6.fsf@geneva.hpsy.me> <87zkp4pavn.fsf@lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1299688668 21124 80.91.229.12 (9 Mar 2011 16:37:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 16:37:48 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Mar 09 17:37:44 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PxMOO-0003V3-0o for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:37:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:55088 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PxMHJ-0002Gm-Oi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:30:25 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59760 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PxMHF-0002GO-TZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:30:22 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxMHE-0003iH-Hh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:30:21 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:55963) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PxMHE-0003ht-6f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 11:30:20 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PxMH8-0007bn-KA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:30:14 +0100 Original-Received: from 75-143-92-146.dhcp.aubn.al.charter.com ([75.143.92.146]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:30:14 +0100 Original-Received: from gilleylen by 75-143-92-146.dhcp.aubn.al.charter.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:30:14 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 52 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 75-143-92-146.dhcp.aubn.al.charter.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.110014 (No Gnus v0.14) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Xawk9qt++j5Y5VswcLGofo64TDk= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:136973 Archived-At: >Ted Zlatanov writes: > > I think it's better to sign a package than individual files: > - the package manager can do the verification at install time (once) > > - there's already a packaging process which can easily have the extra > signing step, and packages have metadata we can use > > - signing a package would cover all the files, not just Emacs Lisp > files, and would be done just once per package The file-by-file method is not intended to be ubiquitous. I agree that for controlled packages, signing at the package level is good. > - the Emacs Lisp code doesn't have to be polluted by the signing info For packages and multi-file projects, this is sensible, though I don't think the pollution factor is too bad: e.g. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- ;;; el-signed by Joseph Gay :chars 6350 ;; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- ;; Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) ;; iQEcBAABAgAGBQJNd6afAAoJEHcwDyjz7GfnJ1UIALfxJ6nBRQKxlJybtfX1FgkX ;; ZdLdY87eMoHbpffjHPkklzh2rpW5mLUwdhk1HIdiNMvO50v3xx4kGF8BBdBI1bfP ;; HbibsQzjtKe2Rw9gzjApwurraWbBEmVPP/yRXrPE7ORN0B1Hx/Md+ae4WHzq4Nsg ;; Gy21szGsMM4+X3qVhLB+n8qc6/OT4th/qKZGs+BEEe+uX1d7BdKoZBeDv9Be8t7p ;; QWjS5bGs9+6ghqWdbdkxqXW3r0QL5dqBnjUmV/0ZMXJaryuar35woFRRUVfbk01t ;; 13vHlvbOIGPFvE6lWWIhVWum//TpiMkp6d2s3Bx/jakEW9oo6vMAmu0cDWyx07A= ;; =tvGq ;; -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ;;; el-sign.el ends here --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > - older and legacy code doesn't have to be modified to be signed My concern is the quantity of code on EmacsWiki plus the number of people still using it. Perhaps this could be a stopgap approach until ELPA takes over. This wouldn't affect unsigned code. It would be treated the same as it is now. Only for things that are signed would there be any potential benefit (assurance that the signature is trusted and validated). I have some working code now, so I will look into what it would take to implement a mechanism for ELPA, assuming that's not already in the works. Thanks for your input.