From: Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il>
To: Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org, Ryan Prior <ryanprior@hey.com>
Subject: Re: Mitigating "dependency confusion" attacks on Guix users
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:12:48 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YCP38L8aBj4JXx+I@3900XT> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <871rdobbt0.fsf@cbaines.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2051 bytes --]
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 07:51:23AM +0000, Christopher Baines wrote:
>
> Ryan Prior <ryanprior@hey.com> writes:
>
> > However, I'm still thinking about how to attack Guix users. Somebody who
> > adds an internal channel for their own packages could still be
> > vulnerable to a dependency confusion attack via a compromised or
> > manipulated Guix maintainer. The target of the attack could install
> > packages they believed would be provided by their internal channel but
> > actually get another package provided upstream.
> >
> > The degree of vulnerability increases further with each channel used,
> > with each channel maintainer becoming another potential vector of
> > compromise. How can we make this kind of attack even more difficult?
> >
> > What comes to my mind is that we should encourage (require?) people to
> > specify the channel name a package belongs to, if it's not the "guix"
> > channel. So instead of referring to "python-beautifulsoup4" (ambiguous:
> > is this from my channel or upstream Guix?) we say that "python-
> > beautifulsoup4" always means that package from the "guix" channel and a
> > version provided by my channel called "internal" needs to be called for
> > explicitly, like "@internal/python-beautifulsoup4".
>
> I'm not sure you can escape trusting the collection of channels you're
> using. Because channels are code that's expected to interact, I'm not
> sure it's easy to target a single package from a specific channel, and
> expect that this provides some security. A malicious channel could
> simply reach out and modify the state in modules from a different
> channel, which would circumvent the protection you're suggesting.
perhaps with module-set! ? Is that the one that lets you redefine a
package in a different module, from, say, your os-config?
--
Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-10 15:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-10 0:08 Mitigating "dependency confusion" attacks on Guix users Ryan Prior
2021-02-10 7:48 ` Lars-Dominik Braun
2021-02-10 7:51 ` Christopher Baines
2021-02-10 14:33 ` Jonathan Frederickson
2021-02-10 15:12 ` Efraim Flashner [this message]
2021-02-10 11:28 ` zimoun
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YCP38L8aBj4JXx+I@3900XT \
--to=efraim@flashner.co.il \
--cc=guix-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=mail@cbaines.net \
--cc=ryanprior@hey.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.