5 ms·
Why not use the Rust implementation[1] of the PGP instead? I feel that writing something new and complex like this in non-statically typed language (Python in t
by xvilka 5y ago
Why not use the Rust implementation[1] of the PGP instead? I feel that writing something new and complex like this in non-statically typed language (Python in this case) is a recipe for disaster. Someone suggested using TUF, but it's also in Python and prone to shifting compile-time errors to runtime.
[1] https://sequoia-pgp.org/ https://sequoia-pgp.org/
- tptacek 5y agoBecause even memory-safe implementations of PGP are saddled with the complexity and legacy cruft the the protocol itself, and the thing Debian projects are actually looking to do is exactly what the signify/minisign family of signature schemes does, using exclusively modern cryptography, with the simplest possible interface.
- xvilka 5y agoMakes sense if they don't plan it to become more accommodating and complex over time.
- tptacek 5y agoIronically, by using a modern, stripped down signing system like this, they've probably increased their opportunities to do interesting things down the road, since they don't have all the possible weird interactions with the PGP system to consider.
- julian-klode 5y agoStill have to trust 1k RSA keys because GPG does not allow us to say they're unsafe.
- deknos 5y agoi am pretty sure you can mark them yourself. but that they are generally still used, well that's called backwards compatibility. and that's needed.
- upofadown 5y agoYou can tell how long a key is just by looking at it. You can then say anything you want. The use of particular keys is a Debian policy issue. It has nothing to do with the use of a particular message format like OpenPGP.
- julian-klode 5y agoThat's not how it works, no. This is a gpg specific issue as it does not communicate the key size over the status fd. We don't parse the keys ourselves for obvious reasons.
- upofadown 5y agoDunno about that but --with-colons certainly works to show the key length of a key.
- deknos 5y agoi would bet that if debian had some sane requirements, sequoia could fulfill them. sequoia is a rewrite which avoids the legacy cruft of the old OpenPGP. and they already have a library, a cli tool and tests
- julian-klode 5y agoThat's an absurd statement. OpenPGP _is_ the legacy cruft. It's made for _emails_. It makes no sense elsewhere. The encoding for clearsigned signatures is overly complex. And Rust is inappropriate in any case for now, it's not allowed in Ubuntu main.
- xvilka 5y agoIt's a problem of Ubuntu then, not Debian.
- julian-klode 5y agoNot gonna have two different signing implementation. Same security concerns apply to Debian too, of course. Having 130+ packages to rebuild for a critical security update is no fun.
- deknos 5y ago> That's an absurd statement. OpenPGP _is_ the legacy cruft. It's made for _emails_. It makes no sense elsewhere. The encoding for clearsigned signatures is overly complex. No. It's a message encryption, and namespaces are emails, but then, most logins nowadays are identifiers via some email. this is not true. and encodings are fixable and doable in a good library, so there's no misuse. > And Rust is inappropriate in any case for now, it's not allowed in Ubuntu main. that's new to me, but possible, why? any link?
- julian-klode 5y agoRust is a security nightmare. We'd need to add over 130 packages to main for sequioa, and then we'd need to rebuild them all each time one of them needs a security update.
- upofadown 5y agoDoes Debian enforce a particular implementation of OpenPGP? For all we know Sequoia is already in use. OpenPGP is valuable mostly as a popular and widely standardized format. There a lots of implementations.
- julian-klode 5y agoYou have the choice between GnuPG 1 and GnuPG 2 :D