On 2022-06-08, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2022-06-08, Efraim Flashner wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 07:20:25AM +0200, Julien Lepiller wrote:
>>> On June 7, 2022 5:24:22 AM GMT+02:00, Felix Lechner <felix.lechner@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 6:50 PM Vagrant Cascadian
>>> ><vagrant@reproducible-builds.org> wrote:
>> This is something we can work with. We can just mark the package as
>> '#:substitutable? #f' and then everyone will have to build it
>> themselves. It still won't really be reproducible, but everyone will
>> actually have their own special random number.
>
> This actually seems like the best approach in the short term! Leaving
> time to work out a better fix long-term, probably by working with
> upstream...
>
> Thoughts?

Should I just push that part for the short-term workaround? Or does
someone else want to push that?


>>> >MaraDNS does not support DNSSEC so the program may not use entropy for
>>> >keys. Either way, I'd rather use an unreproducible build than,
>>> >accidentally, a known number series to encrypt secrets. Can one patch
>>> >out the constant entirely so it is no longer available?
>>> >
>>> >The upstream website says: "People like MaraDNS because it’s ...
>>> >remarkably secure." [1] Since many distributions have the same issue,
>>> >upstream could perhaps offer the patch as a build switch to enable a
>>> >build-time seed only when needed.
>>> 
>>> Sounds like the safest option. Maybe we could change the code that uses that number to naise an exception or abort?
>
> Yeah, seems worth taking this or similar ideas upstream...

And, this was the best place I found to mention this issue upstream,
will see what kind of response I get:

  https://github.com/samboy/MaraDNS/discussions/101#discussioncomment-3006487


live well,
  vagrant