From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id WA+JKPAZcmBnVQEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 23:34:40 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id sBZdIvAZcmCPIAAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:34:40 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D0AE1EFD9 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 23:34:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:54792 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVLFW-0006O6-3G for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:34:38 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44574) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVL6F-0004e6-Gy for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:25:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:41912) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lVL6E-0005EP-Bt for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:25:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lVL6E-0003YN-8F for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:25:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#47634: Accompany .asc and .DIGESTS keys for the ISO Resent-From: bo0od Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47634 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Carlo Zancanaro Received: via spool by 47634-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B47634.161808987013611 (code B ref 47634); Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:25:02 +0000 Received: (at 47634) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2021 21:24:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53458 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lVL5h-0003XT-Rt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:24:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:49858) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lVL5f-0003XF-IP for 47634@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:24:28 -0400 Received: from fews1.riseup.net (fews1-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FHp0j6NTzzDsl2; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1618089861; bh=b+XLrSbbEQ2vba7Ro8RRxCcRaf5tO6bb5ABY1zrN8K8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=tKhtsVkL+NHG0JI04u86VOCXCWsgwUVd/CMIq03DZnlkkSfEXbqIXlceIbUF6MIF2 yI7uF881yF1aL9dKab4Fx39xwZNIdYHlfKPxhqhq73lk/A9iVf5zBmfxmqEVf3wBRa jPvT0p3CxMDqjh2vHnk9gQlm9N4F0rc6+Eq5o+WU= X-Riseup-User-ID: 47D4B846FB10B9B6CB9F39F000578869FA7EB855EA041381DD1006D4D9EAB7B0 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FHp0g5j7Hz5vkr; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 14:24:18 -0700 (PDT) References: <60cab189-2c49-0f7f-8c32-178220540514@riseup.net> <8624B91E-1A4F-4455-880A-E5664C27D5B1@zancanaro.id.au> <5c01ac9b-74db-42d5-db39-7f287b70255d@riseup.net> <87y2dqlvqj.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> From: bo0od Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:24:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87y2dqlvqj.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:34:30 -0400 X-BeenThere: bug-guix@gnu.org List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: 47634@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1618090480; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding:resent-cc: resent-from:resent-sender:resent-message-id:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=Z1qQy8Dt/YWDBK9q/BKp1mkgQDGyqev9US1nIziEo0k=; b=L7dauDrz8AtkyBO9Fb9gMveZe0YDh+Lz/cUkUZN9ddvDGe8keJRGy+dudoGtvOE9WgBSQY UEFov+NDsnoskAFE1/l+Ca7qhznuqDtlCiOJJRdYnj1fOTbA3VDwRcgd6kuuWte5VA8QNT oJmNtynAnYApC+xORH0moGdrjKUMWknaTZ6RAh+xJibw/hCH7CHdBXQdx5apIyKL12ENzB /YncDJp2CDqS/SLIFYoRfqEB1xFKALaxVnKjtHVu6WLgA50maWPk1xw9SDfAYewqg0f/76 DePt4+BRHyprEszhI2uZa+TZ6BydHQ+PHffjzxvVOToV/9d5SWnSIS0leVntpw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1618090480; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=NTm1NmjAaLBK+V/mDq6pwmhvrDw2FeM9+ExqjqXkFvjcfKPwnej+PDCS5P2YvOzeRHbd2X irLB8rl+eW8ac1k8/kVw4A82rQBwaR70Mcnt8J7QLkBqMpVoOOw2RRLhzMHRBNel1CrP6l W6jeIZJZgEBbRF2kezgkQxH3rV5qnTCzrkwO6J6LDMeb8Ui/Ab0YeZnIpsDsB+RvCFu6TW k/WtK/PUDflrm/u99Fzj4wrz4TqeD9j+fJpbSRyc5/8v8AgZBSF86fBDP4zzWva6W+3ANU xTw9b3//aFXpxAduVhIcybxQOb8tnuZxEfkmHlTRxwPL4DmJCiVTgYWLfYMpxw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=riseup.net header.s=squak header.b=tKhtsVkL; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.34 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail ("headers rsa verify failed") header.d=riseup.net header.s=squak header.b=tKhtsVkL; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=riseup.net (policy=none); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bug-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 5D0AE1EFD9 X-Spam-Score: -1.34 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: 6Okwp+vObOL4 > In this instance, the hash provides no > significant additional value over the signature. What you said is true, Only thing i would see it useful when there is an attack on PGP but not necessary can be produced as well on the same time on SHA512 like collision attack or so (nothing at the moment discovered but just theoretical attack) > If we look at the Tor project (who, I hope you will agree, care about > security), their download page[1] only provides links to PGP signatures > as their sole method of verification. If you tell me what most projects using at the moment i would tell you straight forward PGP, But on the future bases PGP on the bye bye way so what im suggesting here is to make it happen now rather than just waiting for the future to come with its more insecurities. (like what i referred to debian deprecation of PGP) > I think there may be a larger conversation to have around using > something like Signify rather than PGP/GPG, but I'm not familiar enough > with Signify to have an opinion about that at the moment. Sure tyt, These stuff doesnt need to be fixed instantly but need to be looked in for sure. ThX! Carlo Zancanaro: > Hi bo0od! > > On Sat, Apr 10 2021, bo0od wrote: >>> Which implies that the signatures are sufficient, right? >> >> Well this is simple question but the answer is sorta deeper, So i will >> answer with yes and no: >> >> yes signatures are sufficient but signatures with PGP has problems... > > I grant that this might be true, but whether or not to use PGP is a > different issue to whether cryptographic signatures are sufficient to > verify downloads. If we compare the projects you've shown as examples: > > - Qubes provides hashes, PGP signatures, and a release signing key > > - Whonix provides hashes, PGP signatures, and a release signing key > > For verification purposes the hashes only provide transport integrity - > they don't provide any mechanism to verify where the content came from, > and because they're stored next to the images it's likely that any > attacker who could manipulate the images could also manipulate the > hashes. The signature provides a better guarantee that the image > contains what the project intends to distribute (i.e. that nobody has > compromised image itself). In this instance, the hash provides no > significant additional value over the signature. > > If we look at the Tor project (who, I hope you will agree, care about > security), their download page[1] only provides links to PGP signatures > as their sole method of verification. > > I'm not convinced there's much value to add anything beyond the > signatures, and I think there is some cost. Having multiple verification > options makes the download page more confusing (by providing more > choices to do the same thing), and may make it less likely that people > do any verification. > > I think there may be a larger conversation to have around using > something like Signify rather than PGP/GPG, but I'm not familiar enough > with Signify to have an opinion about that at the moment. > > Carlo > > [1]: https://www.torproject.org/download/