[SM-Discuss] Compromise on signatures
Sergey A. Lipnevich
sergey at optimaltec.com
Mon Aug 29 19:22:43 EDT 2005
I can think of the following compromise that would hopefully satisfy all sides.
1. Sorcery keeps support for hashes and signatures, both optional, but with
possibility to be restricted by users of individual systems. Here's one for the
2. When this option becomes available, we move to digitally sign every
repository commit. In effect, this will also sign a hash that is stored in
DETAILS. Should a tarball or both tarball and hash value become compromised,
our repository will help detect that. For added protection, we can also include
the size of tarball into DETAILS, effectively signing it as well.
This way, we will do exactly what is claimed on that Web page: sign package
receipt without signing the contents.
How does appeal to everyone?
More information about the SM-Discuss