9 ms·

> All Snaps are now digitally signed by Canonical, so you actually need to have the end-user install a forked snap tool Isn't the client side open source so yo

> All Snaps are now digitally signed by Canonical, so you actually need to have the end-user install a forked snap tool Isn't the client side open source so you can put your own signature? Digital signing things seems a good idea for security.

gjsman-1000 6y ago
I wish, but the signature is actually compiled into the snapd (the software on your system)'s binary. Deliberately impossible to reconfigure. Like I said, you can change the signature... by distributing a forked binary to users that would be incompatible with the main store.
- lfmunoz4 6y ago
  You can always modify the Linux Kernel system call "open" to detect when an attempt to open the certificate is being attempted and then read out your own certificate.
- simion314 6y ago
  Isn't this good? I mean if you are a distribution you compile the software yourself so you can add the distribution keys (there are some that don't compile stuff ). Probably you are thinking there should be atext file in your home where you could add new signature to be sued, but that could be a security issue so probably needs to be something more safe,did any serious patch was sent to improve this and was it rejected or why we expect Canonical to prioritize this over other issues?
  - msla 6y ago
    > Probably you are thinking there should be atext file in your home where you could add new signature to be sued, but that could be a security issue so probably needs to be something more safe,did any serious patch was sent to improve this and was it rejected or why we expect Canonical to prioritize this over other issues? If someone can replace that text file, they can replace the binary the key is compiled into.
    - gjsman-1000 6y ago
      Yeah, but this isn't really any worse than APT or RPM at the moment. More like, if they can change the text file, you've got bigger problems.
    - simion314 6y ago
      Apt has utilities for managing keys, You could keep it simple with plain text file that anyone can read and write but some dude can paste the wrong thing and corrupt the file, or you need to update the format and old scripts would corrupt the file etc. It can be done but as a developer I put in my code constant numbers and paths because there is not enough of a reason to justify the effort to save this values somewhere else. From the article it seems that there is not enough interest from distributions to have their own app store so there is no justifications to prioritize this feature over other ones.
  - Conan_Kudo 6y ago
    No, this is incredibly bad. Think about the pain we're all going through to rotate UEFI certificates. There is almost no system where this is worth it.
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    No matter who you are, having to maintain a patched version of Snap just to use your own software is absolutely ridiculous. I knew things were bad around Snap, but I didn't think they were attacking their feet with such fire power.
    - simion314 6y ago
      You do not need that, you can just use a flag snap install --dangerous /path/to/snap
      - pantalaimon 6y ago
        But then you won’t get updates for that Snap
        simion314 6y ago
        So you want something like a PPA? Is flatpack promoting each app will have it's own repo(Skype.Dropbox,Slack,Discord?) Seems to me that you want a way to have applications and updates installed by people and bypass the review process? If you are a distro maintainer you can change the hardcoded values before you build(distros always change this stuff) but if you are not a distro then you should either submit the app for review or do what other apps do and prompt a notification that a new update is available with a link to a download page.
        vetinari 6y ago
        > Is flatpack promoting each app will have it's own repo(Skype.Dropbox,Slack,Discord?) Flatpak CAN support the scenario, where each app can have it's own repo. It's an option, not forced down your throat. Or you can self-host your private repo (e.g. applications used inside your network) IN ADDITION to public repos. > Seems to me that you want a way to have applications and updates installed by people and bypass the review process? Yes, I want to have Canonical out of the way. They can have their own repo if they really want; those who want curation by Canonical are free to use it. But I want to have options of different repos, with different curators. Canonical doesn't deserve to be the single gatekeeper between me and the apps. > If you are a distro maintainer you can change the hardcoded values before you build(distros always change this stuff) but if you are not a distro then you should either submit the app for review or do what other apps do and prompt a notification that a new update is available with a link to a download page. And this attitude is going to be a major reason why most distributions and users won't adopt snap. It will die the same way as other Canonical dead-ends did, while damaging the Linux ecosystems for a few years.
__s 6y ago
Ideally you'd be able to add the alternative store's public key to the existing snap client. Like you can do with existing package managers to include alternative repos
- gjsman-1000 6y ago
  They deliberately designed the software to not allow that without you forking. I mean, it is trivially easy for Canonical to just put the public key in a file and have Snap read from that key. Instead, they've hard-compiled it in. Three years ago, I actually had a discussion with them about External Repositories. It's called "External Repositories?" on the forum and has, like, over 200 messages on it. They didn't budge one bit despite our arguments on why this was a very bad idea on their part.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Was there a competent patch submitted about keys and was this discussed in public? I imagine you can't just drop the keys in a random text file, it must be protected like the passwords file.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      They're public keys so they can be in plaintext and protected by 0644. They don't really have to be different from apt keys.
      - simion314 6y ago
        You still need to protect from getting updated by errors or malicious code. For apt you have utilities to edit the keys you don't edit a test file by hand.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        Sure. I only hope to answer "like the passwords file".

gjsman-1000 6y ago

I wish, but the signature is actually compiled into the snapd (the software on your system)'s binary. Deliberately impossible to reconfigure. Like I said, you can change the signature... by distributing a forked binary to users that would be incompatible with the main store.

lfmunoz4 6y ago
You can always modify the Linux Kernel system call "open" to detect when an attempt to open the certificate is being attempted and then read out your own certificate.
simion314 6y ago
Isn't this good? I mean if you are a distribution you compile the software yourself so you can add the distribution keys (there are some that don't compile stuff ). Probably you are thinking there should be atext file in your home where you could add new signature to be sued, but that could be a security issue so probably needs to be something more safe,did any serious patch was sent to improve this and was it rejected or why we expect Canonical to prioritize this over other issues?
- msla 6y ago
  > Probably you are thinking there should be atext file in your home where you could add new signature to be sued, but that could be a security issue so probably needs to be something more safe,did any serious patch was sent to improve this and was it rejected or why we expect Canonical to prioritize this over other issues? If someone can replace that text file, they can replace the binary the key is compiled into.
  - gjsman-1000 6y ago
    Yeah, but this isn't really any worse than APT or RPM at the moment. More like, if they can change the text file, you've got bigger problems.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Apt has utilities for managing keys, You could keep it simple with plain text file that anyone can read and write but some dude can paste the wrong thing and corrupt the file, or you need to update the format and old scripts would corrupt the file etc. It can be done but as a developer I put in my code constant numbers and paths because there is not enough of a reason to justify the effort to save this values somewhere else. From the article it seems that there is not enough interest from distributions to have their own app store so there is no justifications to prioritize this feature over other ones.
- Conan_Kudo 6y ago
  No, this is incredibly bad. Think about the pain we're all going through to rotate UEFI certificates. There is almost no system where this is worth it.
- solarkraft 6y ago
  No matter who you are, having to maintain a patched version of Snap just to use your own software is absolutely ridiculous. I knew things were bad around Snap, but I didn't think they were attacking their feet with such fire power.
  - simion314 6y ago
    You do not need that, you can just use a flag snap install --dangerous /path/to/snap
    - pantalaimon 6y ago
      But then you won’t get updates for that Snap
      - simion314 6y ago
        So you want something like a PPA? Is flatpack promoting each app will have it's own repo(Skype.Dropbox,Slack,Discord?) Seems to me that you want a way to have applications and updates installed by people and bypass the review process? If you are a distro maintainer you can change the hardcoded values before you build(distros always change this stuff) but if you are not a distro then you should either submit the app for review or do what other apps do and prompt a notification that a new update is available with a link to a download page.
        vetinari 6y ago
        > Is flatpack promoting each app will have it's own repo(Skype.Dropbox,Slack,Discord?) Flatpak CAN support the scenario, where each app can have it's own repo. It's an option, not forced down your throat. Or you can self-host your private repo (e.g. applications used inside your network) IN ADDITION to public repos. > Seems to me that you want a way to have applications and updates installed by people and bypass the review process? Yes, I want to have Canonical out of the way. They can have their own repo if they really want; those who want curation by Canonical are free to use it. But I want to have options of different repos, with different curators. Canonical doesn't deserve to be the single gatekeeper between me and the apps. > If you are a distro maintainer you can change the hardcoded values before you build(distros always change this stuff) but if you are not a distro then you should either submit the app for review or do what other apps do and prompt a notification that a new update is available with a link to a download page. And this attitude is going to be a major reason why most distributions and users won't adopt snap. It will die the same way as other Canonical dead-ends did, while damaging the Linux ecosystems for a few years.

__s 6y ago

Ideally you'd be able to add the alternative store's public key to the existing snap client. Like you can do with existing package managers to include alternative repos

gjsman-1000 6y ago
They deliberately designed the software to not allow that without you forking. I mean, it is trivially easy for Canonical to just put the public key in a file and have Snap read from that key. Instead, they've hard-compiled it in. Three years ago, I actually had a discussion with them about External Repositories. It's called "External Repositories?" on the forum and has, like, over 200 messages on it. They didn't budge one bit despite our arguments on why this was a very bad idea on their part.
- simion314 6y ago
  Was there a competent patch submitted about keys and was this discussed in public? I imagine you can't just drop the keys in a random text file, it must be protected like the passwords file.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    They're public keys so they can be in plaintext and protected by 0644. They don't really have to be different from apt keys.
    - simion314 6y ago
      You still need to protect from getting updated by errors or malicious code. For apt you have utilities to edit the keys you don't edit a test file by hand.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        Sure. I only hope to answer "like the passwords file".