3 ms·
One big difference in my opinion is that a CI system can (and should) allow for guarantees about provenance. Ideally code signing can only be done for your app
by slaymaker1907 6y ago
One big difference in my opinion is that a CI system can (and should) allow for guarantees about provenance. Ideally code signing can only be done for your app from the CI server. This allows users/services to guarantee that the code they are running has gone through whatever workflows are necessary to be built on the build server (most importantly that all code has been reviewed).
As a principle, I consider any codebase which can be compromised by corrupting a single person to be inherently vulnerable. Sometimes this is ok, but this is definitely not ok for critical systems. Obviously it is better to have a stronger safety factor and require more groups/individuals to be corrupted, but there are diminishing returns considering it is assumed said individuals are already relatively trustworthy. Additionally, it is really surprising to me how many code platforms make providing even basic guarantees like this one impossible.
- gilbetron 6y agoIt is something we're definitely concerned about: https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/engineering/secure-publication-of-datadog-agent-integrations-with-tuf-and-in-toto/ https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/engineering/secure-publicatio...