From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: ELPA security Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:59:33 -0500 Message-ID: References: <8738zf70ep.fsf@riseup.net> <871uejlbm1.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87k3rrr31g.fsf@Rainer.invalid> <874nium8h0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87zk0ljaub.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87wqvng299.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87ip77y2s9.fsf@Rainer.invalid> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1357678781 18589 80.91.229.3 (8 Jan 2013 20:59:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:59:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Achim Gratz Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jan 08 21:59:58 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TsgH7-0003gA-OR for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:59:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40885 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsgGs-0005BE-5w for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:59:42 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59793) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsgGo-0005Aj-LA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:59:40 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsgGn-0005mt-Io for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:59:38 -0500 Original-Received: from pruche.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.22]:42474) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TsgGn-0005kY-C6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:59:37 -0500 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by pruche.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r08KxURe030871; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:59:30 -0500 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 1386F59230; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:59:34 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <87ip77y2s9.fsf@Rainer.invalid> (Achim Gratz's message of "Tue, 08 Jan 2013 18:59:02 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4455=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9309 : core <4455> : streams <887659> : uri <1314176> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.22 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:156161 Archived-At: >> Actually, I see a problem with this scheme, now that we also keep around >> older versions of the packages. So maybe it's better to keep the >> signatures in a separate file, next to the signed file (e.g. have foo.tar >> and foo.tar.gpgsig). > Then maybe the file listed in the package vector should be the *.gpgsig > one, since otherwise it becomes easy to bypass the check by filtering > out any traces of the signature file. Right, we'd need to indicate somewhere that the sig should be present, indeed. A simple way to do that is to tell package.el directly, e.g. via `package-archives' or just by declaring that all ELPA archives should always have such signatures (they're pretty easy to add, so I'd expect marmalade and melpa to adjust pretty quickly). Stefan