4 ms·

It's not just rubygems that has this issue, it's all the other repos too, most of which (AFAIK) don't enforce 2FA Also worth noting that whilst MFA helps, it's

It's not just rubygems that has this issue, it's all the other repos too, most of which (AFAIK) don't enforce 2FA Also worth noting that whilst MFA helps, it's not a panacea as MFA isn't generally compatible with automated CI/CD processes, so API keys will still be required, and can be leaked/lost/stolen.

cooljacob204 7y ago
Why would a CI/CD need to permissions modify and commit code to a repo?
- raesene9 7y ago
  Say your CI pipeline runs automated tests, builds the gem and pushes to Rubygems, it needs permissions to push to Rubygems. So if an attacker compromises the API key used by that pipeline, they get the rights to push to Rubygems.
  - enneff 7y ago
    Actually publishing new versions seems like something that happens infrequently enough that it would be fine to require a manual auth to complete it. Given the potential risks it seems prudent.
    - raesene9 7y ago
      I'd expect that very much depends on the software in question. As one example that I'm aware of, gvisor from Google delivers nightly builds. So they're building and pushing every single day. It'd depend on the individual software library and of course as a consumer of many libraries you generally will have limited or no visibility of the practices of all your dependencies.
      - rubber_duck 7y ago
        I don't think nightly builds are the same thing as releases - you can have CI publish a build but to create a versioned public release it should require manual auth.
        raesene9 7y ago
        That's a view of course (although in the case of gVisor they don't actually do versioned build just nightlies) but here's a question. As a consumer of software libraries, have you ever looked into the security practices of the library author before choosing whether to use it or not?
        ryanbrunner 7y ago
        This is becoming increasingly impractical for certain ecosystems as packages depend on packages, which depend on packages, etc. It's less of a problem with the bundler ecosystem, where larger packages with relatively few dependencies is more standard, but in the JS world installing a package means that you're likely installing tens or hundreds of sub-dependencies.
        rubber_duck 7y ago
        I did review two small libs I was pulling that had very few users (and froze the version) But that's just the thing - I will never be in a position to do that for more than a few libs - that's why the best I can do is rely on source enforcing good practices and community audits.
      - adrianN 7y ago
        Every single day doesn't sound too often to have someone press a physical button.
    - zbentley 7y ago
      Absolutely agree. One-click deploys are nice, but in some circumstances not worth the cost. The manual component can also be polished to the point where it's not that arduous (think github login with 2FA and clicking the "merge" button).
    - fahrradflucht 7y ago
      The argument for automated releases is always that it is quite easy to do silly mistakes like forgetting a build step while doing manual releases. This also happened to high profile npm packages in the past and people complained that there was no automation.
      - psychrometer 7y ago
        I think they are suggesting a mostly automated build process and then a manual entering of a the second factor OTP at the deploy stage. The entering of the 2FA isn't something that will be hard to easy to mess up and you still receive the benefits of automated builds for the most part.
  - C4stor 7y ago
    I doesn't seem hard to imagine a CI pipeline that sends an email/sms for validation and waits an affirmative answer before continuing. I have no idea how to receive texts on a server, but sending and receiving emails is super easy.
sersi 7y ago
Yes, I agree, it's not only rubygems, npm had the same problem not so long ago and it is a general issue in all repos. One thing that would be inconvenient but would protect against that would be to have the api work as usual, but need to use MFA and login to the website to approve a new release (and have information there listing the ip and time of upload). That would only make sense for heavily used gems like this one but it seems that it would stop most issues?
- raesene9 7y ago
  It would help for sure, I'd guess the problem would be , will the maintainers of all these libraries be happy with the overhead that this would introduce. A less invasive control might be to notify all owners when a new version is pushed, so they would be aware of a risk, if they weren't expecting a new release. Not perfect, but something.
andrewaylett 7y ago
How about a split, so releases can be uploaded by API key, but only published by someone using MFA?

cooljacob204 7y ago

Why would a CI/CD need to permissions modify and commit code to a repo?

raesene9 7y ago
Say your CI pipeline runs automated tests, builds the gem and pushes to Rubygems, it needs permissions to push to Rubygems. So if an attacker compromises the API key used by that pipeline, they get the rights to push to Rubygems.
- enneff 7y ago
  Actually publishing new versions seems like something that happens infrequently enough that it would be fine to require a manual auth to complete it. Given the potential risks it seems prudent.
  - raesene9 7y ago
    I'd expect that very much depends on the software in question. As one example that I'm aware of, gvisor from Google delivers nightly builds. So they're building and pushing every single day. It'd depend on the individual software library and of course as a consumer of many libraries you generally will have limited or no visibility of the practices of all your dependencies.
    - rubber_duck 7y ago
      I don't think nightly builds are the same thing as releases - you can have CI publish a build but to create a versioned public release it should require manual auth.
      - raesene9 7y ago
        That's a view of course (although in the case of gVisor they don't actually do versioned build just nightlies) but here's a question. As a consumer of software libraries, have you ever looked into the security practices of the library author before choosing whether to use it or not?
        ryanbrunner 7y ago
        This is becoming increasingly impractical for certain ecosystems as packages depend on packages, which depend on packages, etc. It's less of a problem with the bundler ecosystem, where larger packages with relatively few dependencies is more standard, but in the JS world installing a package means that you're likely installing tens or hundreds of sub-dependencies.
        rubber_duck 7y ago
        I did review two small libs I was pulling that had very few users (and froze the version) But that's just the thing - I will never be in a position to do that for more than a few libs - that's why the best I can do is rely on source enforcing good practices and community audits.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Every single day doesn't sound too often to have someone press a physical button.
  - zbentley 7y ago
    Absolutely agree. One-click deploys are nice, but in some circumstances not worth the cost. The manual component can also be polished to the point where it's not that arduous (think github login with 2FA and clicking the "merge" button).
  - fahrradflucht 7y ago
    The argument for automated releases is always that it is quite easy to do silly mistakes like forgetting a build step while doing manual releases. This also happened to high profile npm packages in the past and people complained that there was no automation.
    - psychrometer 7y ago
      I think they are suggesting a mostly automated build process and then a manual entering of a the second factor OTP at the deploy stage. The entering of the 2FA isn't something that will be hard to easy to mess up and you still receive the benefits of automated builds for the most part.
- C4stor 7y ago
  I doesn't seem hard to imagine a CI pipeline that sends an email/sms for validation and waits an affirmative answer before continuing. I have no idea how to receive texts on a server, but sending and receiving emails is super easy.

sersi 7y ago

Yes, I agree, it's not only rubygems, npm had the same problem not so long ago and it is a general issue in all repos. One thing that would be inconvenient but would protect against that would be to have the api work as usual, but need to use MFA and login to the website to approve a new release (and have information there listing the ip and time of upload). That would only make sense for heavily used gems like this one but it seems that it would stop most issues?

raesene9 7y ago
It would help for sure, I'd guess the problem would be , will the maintainers of all these libraries be happy with the overhead that this would introduce. A less invasive control might be to notify all owners when a new version is pushed, so they would be aware of a risk, if they weren't expecting a new release. Not perfect, but something.

andrewaylett 7y ago

How about a split, so releases can be uploaded by API key, but only published by someone using MFA?