Re: backdoor injection via release tarballs combined with binary artifacts (was Re: Backdoor in upstream xz-utils)

[Giovanni Biscuolo <g@xelera.eu>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 987 bytes --]

Hi Attila,

Attila Lendvai <attila@lendvai.name> writes:

>> Also, in (info "(guix) origin Reference") I see that Guix packages
>> can have a list of uri(s) for the origin of source code, see xz as an
>> example [7]: are they intended to be multiple independent sources to
>> be compared in order to prevent possible tampering or are they "just"
>> alternatives to be used if the first listed uri is unavailable?
>
> a source origin is identified by its cryptographic hash (stored in its
> sha256 field); i.e. it doesn't matter *where* the source archive was
> acquired from. if the hash matches the one in the package definition,
> then it's the same archive that the guix packager has seen while
> packaging.

Ehrm, you are right, mine was a stupid question :-)

We *are* already verifying that tarballs had not been tampered
with... by other people but the release manager :-(

[...]

Happy hacking! Gio'

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 849 bytes --]