6 ms·

This doesn't solve the problem. At all. A checksum is NOT a substitute for a digital signature. https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/08/you-wouldnt-base64-a-passwo

This doesn't solve the problem. At all. A checksum is NOT a substitute for a digital signature. https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/08/you-wouldnt-base64-a-password-cryptography-decoded https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/08/you-wouldnt-base64-a-pass...

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Hydraulix989 11y ago
Right. All I have to do is distribute the correct hash for my binary as a malicious software distributor because there's no authenticity verification at all, only that the bits in my binary blob match a certain pattern.
- rhizome 11y ago
  Is that supposed to be sarcasm? Hard to tell.
  - CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
    I suspect not.
__david__ 11y ago
It is given the following attack scenario: attacker is man-in-the-middling, and the SHA (but not the actual binary) is delivered via https. In the case where the attacked has direct control over the website then you're right, it doesn't help at all.
- CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
  > In the case where the attacked has direct control over the website then you're right, it doesn't help at all. I was pretty sure that's the threat model we were discussing: Software authenticity. The only way to automatically know if a piece of software is legitimate is to have a trusted public key that can verify a signature. Also, HTTPS is implied these days. If you're not using HTTPS, you are either malicious, negligent, incompetent, or working for someone who is some or all of the above.
  - __david__ 11y ago
    > If you're not using HTTPS, you are either malicious, negligent, incompetent… Or poor. Hosting large amounts of binaries over https isn't cheap. I just priced Amazon S3 and cloudfront and for the amount of data that I serve it would cost $300 per month. That's a lot to commit for a GPL-ed binary that brings in practically zero revenue. Maybe there's a cut rate VPS out there that can handle 150GB of data and 3TB of bandwidth per month on the cheap, but I haven't found it yet.
    - kruczek 11y ago
      How much is it for the same volume of non-HTTPS traffic?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

Hydraulix989 11y ago

Right. All I have to do is distribute the correct hash for my binary as a malicious software distributor because there's no authenticity verification at all, only that the bits in my binary blob match a certain pattern.

rhizome 11y ago
Is that supposed to be sarcasm? Hard to tell.
- CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
  I suspect not.

__david__ 11y ago

It is given the following attack scenario: attacker is man-in-the-middling, and the SHA (but not the actual binary) is delivered via https. In the case where the attacked has direct control over the website then you're right, it doesn't help at all.

CiPHPerCoder 11y ago
> In the case where the attacked has direct control over the website then you're right, it doesn't help at all. I was pretty sure that's the threat model we were discussing: Software authenticity. The only way to automatically know if a piece of software is legitimate is to have a trusted public key that can verify a signature. Also, HTTPS is implied these days. If you're not using HTTPS, you are either malicious, negligent, incompetent, or working for someone who is some or all of the above.
- __david__ 11y ago
  > If you're not using HTTPS, you are either malicious, negligent, incompetent… Or poor. Hosting large amounts of binaries over https isn't cheap. I just priced Amazon S3 and cloudfront and for the amount of data that I serve it would cost $300 per month. That's a lot to commit for a GPL-ed binary that brings in practically zero revenue. Maybe there's a cut rate VPS out there that can handle 150GB of data and 3TB of bandwidth per month on the cheap, but I haven't found it yet.
  - kruczek 11y ago
    How much is it for the same volume of non-HTTPS traffic?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]