4 ms·
I love that tools like BitBake support integrity, but I also feel it's not enough to merely support it. We must incentivize it, if not outright require it. In
by heavenlyhash 10y ago
I love that tools like BitBake support integrity, but I also feel it's not enough to merely support it. We must incentivize it, if not outright require it.
Integrity is a property of the whole ecosystem. Our toolchains are complex, and call other tools, and those call yet more tools. Optional "support" at any layer means even though the user might ask for integrity at one level, their security and integrity may be unverified by another layer of tool. If we want integrity from the whole ecosystem, we must demand it from every part.
Integrity should be a mandate, not an option.
- walterbell 10y agoMost (all?) OpenEmbedded production recipes already use this mechanism to specify hashes during builds.
- heavenlyhash 10y agoMost isn't enough. "All?" with a question mark isn't enough. Just like one zero-day is enough to totally compromise a system, one unverified source anywhere in a build dependency tree is a great way to land just one RCE, leaving your system precisely as hosed as if you just got hit with a zero-day. :) I saw another blog about the summit the top link reports on discuss this as well -- from https://garbas.si/2016/reproducible-builds-summit-in-berlin.html https://garbas.si/2016/reproducible-builds-summit-in-berlin.... : > As with zero vulnerability days, there should probably be zero reproducibility days.