Re: Checking signatures on source tarballs

[Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com>]

Mark H Weaver (2015-10-07 05:07 +0300) wrote:

> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-10-05 18:55 +0300) wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Kost <alezost@gmail.com> skribis:
>>>
>>>> Ludovic Courtès (2015-10-04 19:57 +0300) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> However, if this is “too convenient”, I’m afraid this would give an
>>>>> incentive to not check OpenPGP signatures when they are available.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I have no idea what it means :-(
>>>
>>> When upstream digitally signs its source code tarballs, packagers should
>>> check those signatures to authenticate the code they have.
>>>
>>> If the tool makes it too easy to fill out the ‘sha256’ field without
>>> going through the trouble of downloading the ‘.sig’ file and checking
>>> it, then people will have an incentive not to check those signatures.
>>
>> Oh, now I see what you mean.  Well, I don't know, I think if a user has
>> a habbit to check a signature, he will check it anyway; and if not, then
>> not.
>
> I share Ludovic's concern.  It is a serious problem if packagers fail to
> check signatures.  We should not provide mechanisms that encourage such
> behavior.  It jeopardizes the security of every user of those packages.

OK, apparently I underestimate security issues, thanks.

-- 
Alex