Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Ondra Tomecka <otom7630 AT lucy.troja.mff.cuni.cz>]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, David Kowis wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Ondra Tomecka wrote:
> > 
> > And don't forget that this has potential for a huge security hole, when 
> > some malicious user contributes tarball with modified binary. How are we 
> > supposed to detect such a thing, or prevent it at all? Not that I think 
> > such tarball cache is bad idea, it would save me quite a lot of time 
> > sometimes, but still this security concern is a big one.
> 
> Perhaps, since there's stuff in sorcery for GPG verification, we could
> use gpg to verify the tarballs. If the QA Team is going to generate them
> then they could sign the tarballs and put the signature and the cache on
> the download site.
> 
> 

But if QA team is to create those tarballs, what is the reason for other 
users to create them? I know, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but there 
are important security issues here and I just don't want my computers to 
fall easy prey to malicious hacker :) I may sound a bit paranoid, but I'm 
managing one server under constant attack (about 20 attempts a day), so 
the paranoia has its own sense :) Not counting other computers where I use 
SourceMage (3 as of now, fourth to be added soon)

If anyone shows me that my concerns are moot, it would be great then. Not 
that I like to be proved wrong, but when good idea turns out to be secure 
idea, the better for everyone.

Andy