all messages for Emacs-related lists mirrored at yhetil.org
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
To: Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se>
Cc: 19479@debbugs.gnu.org, Noam Postavsky <npostavs@gmail.com>
Subject: bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable to replay attacks
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:30:44 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <jwv5z5sdfog.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADwFkmnKvC3KQhc5tdPTK9YtrcoUbCzyG1AW5Gn7_eK1OK9--A@mail.gmail.com> (Stefan Kangas's message of "Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:06:38 -0500")

> While not perfect, with a secure hash function, collisions are hard
> enough to find that we for our purposes (like the rest of the world) can
> happily not worry about it.  In comparison, it is immeasurably easier to
> fake a version number than having to defeat a hash function.  I think
> this is a significant drawback of what you propose.

I'm not sure what you mean by it being easier: since the tarballs are
cryptographically signed, just like `archive-contents`, if
`archive-contents` points to `foo-42.1.tar` and that tarball has
a correct signature and its content says that it is indeed the package
`foo-42.1`, then I'm not sure which easy attack would be applicable.

AFAICT you'd have to find some old signed tarball which we accidentally
built with an incorrect content?  But presumably if we ever mess up
a tarball like that (which is indeed possible), we'd then want to be
careful not to "reuse" that version number, no?

> We would need to add in a number of assumptions (e.g. packages are
> individually signed,

Which they already are.

> we never accidentally sign an old package with a newer version number,
> etc.),

That's indeed the case as well.

> to gain more confidence in a simple version
> number check.

I think it's comparable: the main failings wold require some error on
our side in how we build and sign packages, and in most such cases
I think we'd end up with holes with either scheme.

> But we could of course also check that the version number is correct.
> That sounds like a useful sanity check to do.

Exactly.

> PS. Note that if we add a checksum, there will no longer be any need to
>     sign individual packages for future versions of Emacs.  We would
>     then only need to sign the metadata.

I think we'd want to keep the signatures anyway, e.g. they can still be
checked manually for old tarballs which aren't listed in
`archive-contents` any more.  And more generally they allow
authenticating the origin of a package without having to look it up in
`archive-contents`.


        Stefan






  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-26  2:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-30 10:42 Emacs package manager vulnerable to replay attacks Kelly Dean
2014-12-30 11:45 ` Ivan Shmakov
2015-01-01 12:38 ` bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable Kelly Dean
2015-01-04 20:00   ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-05  1:11     ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-05  2:16       ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-08  3:31         ` bug#19479: [PATCH] " Kelly Dean
2015-01-08  3:44           ` Glenn Morris
2015-01-08  5:29             ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-08 14:39               ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-08 21:06                 ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-09  2:37                   ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-09  6:59               ` bug#19479: Copyright issue (was: Re: bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable) Kelly Dean
2015-01-09 15:17                 ` bug#19479: Copyright issue Stefan Monnier
2015-01-09 15:29                   ` David Kastrup
2015-01-09 15:29                   ` David Kastrup
2015-01-09 21:00                     ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-09 21:49                       ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-09 23:47                         ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-10  1:18                           ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-11  1:39                             ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-11  3:20                               ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-11  6:33                                 ` Werner LEMBERG
2015-01-12 15:38                               ` Richard Stallman
2015-01-10 19:29                         ` Richard Stallman
2015-01-09 19:57                   ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-09 19:57                   ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-09 20:24                     ` bug#19479: " Glenn Morris
2015-01-09 20:24                     ` Glenn Morris
2015-01-09 20:32                       ` Glenn Morris
2015-01-09 20:32                       ` Glenn Morris
2015-02-24  8:47           ` bug#19479: Emacs package manager vulnerable to replay attacks Kelly Dean
2015-02-24  8:47           ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-11  2:56   ` bug#19479: (on-topic) Re: bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable Kelly Dean
2015-01-20 21:18   ` bug#19479: Disclaimer is now on file at FSF Kelly Dean
2015-02-24 18:11     ` Glenn Morris
2015-02-24 23:02       ` Kelly Dean
2015-02-25 21:09         ` Glenn Morris
2017-09-02 12:24           ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-02-25 21:09         ` Glenn Morris
2015-02-24 23:02       ` Kelly Dean
2015-02-25  4:41       ` Vibhav Pant
2015-02-25  5:32         ` Stephen J. Turnbull
2015-02-24 18:11     ` Glenn Morris
2017-09-03  1:10   ` bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable Glenn Morris
2019-10-04  9:49   ` Stefan Kangas
2020-05-06  0:55     ` Noam Postavsky
2020-09-06 23:59       ` Stefan Kangas
2020-09-07 14:14         ` Noam Postavsky
2020-09-07 18:11           ` Stefan Kangas
2020-11-21 23:51     ` bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable to replay attacks Stefan Kangas
2020-11-26  0:43       ` Stefan Monnier
2020-11-26  2:06         ` Stefan Kangas
2020-11-26  2:30           ` Stefan Monnier [this message]
2020-11-26  3:02             ` Stefan Kangas
2020-11-26  3:11               ` Stefan Monnier
2020-11-26  3:56           ` Jean Louis
2020-09-07 17:19   ` bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable Stefan Kangas
2020-09-07 23:54     ` Noam Postavsky
2020-09-08  8:10       ` Stefan Kangas
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-01-08  3:33 bug#19536: [PATCH] package-upload-buffer-internal fails for tar files Kelly Dean
2015-01-08  5:50 ` Stefan Monnier
2015-01-08  7:10   ` Kelly Dean
2015-01-08 11:40   ` bug#19479: Package manager vulnerable Kelly Dean
2015-02-18  1:03 ` bug#19536: package-upload-buffer-internal fails for tar files Kelly Dean

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=jwv5z5sdfog.fsf-monnier+emacs@gnu.org \
    --to=monnier@iro.umontreal.ca \
    --cc=19479@debbugs.gnu.org \
    --cc=npostavs@gmail.com \
    --cc=stefan@marxist.se \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index

	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
	https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.