From: Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification (v2)
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 00:48:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOazyz0owevWNTYPEYnKzfQDi_bt-BsgAXPMsP5R2Zd045bmKg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <robbat2-20180125T221502-520102938Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
On 26 January 2018 at 00:21, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 11:55:58PM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>> I did not looked into the detailed implementation, however, please
>> make sure integrity check handles the same cases we have applied to
>> emerge-webrsync in the past, including:
> Gemato is the implementation of GLEP74/MetaManifest, which DOES
> explicitly address both of these concerns.
Good!
Thanks.
>
>> 1. Fast forward only in time, this is required to avoid hacker to
>> redirect into older portage to install vulnerabilities that were
>> approved at that time.
> Replay attacks per #1 are addressed via TIMESTAMP field in MetaManifest.
Interesting, I tried again to understand how it is working without
performing rsync to a temporary directory, compare the timestamp and
reject if unexpected.
Are we doing multiple rsync for the metadata?
Long since I used this insecure rsync...
For me it seems like webrsync and/or squashfs are much easier/faster
to apply integrity into than rsync... :)
Regards,
Alon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-25 22:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-25 10:04 [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification Michał Górny
2018-01-25 10:52 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2018-01-25 11:01 ` [gentoo-dev] " Kristian Fiskerstrand
2018-01-25 12:30 ` Michał Górny
2018-01-25 21:38 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-01-25 12:35 ` [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification (v2) Michał Górny
2018-01-25 14:49 ` Aaron W. Swenson
2018-01-25 19:13 ` Ulrich Mueller
2018-01-25 21:37 ` Robin H. Johnson
2018-01-25 21:45 ` Michał Górny
2018-01-25 21:55 ` R0b0t1
2018-01-27 14:27 ` Michał Górny
2018-01-28 6:40 ` R0b0t1
2018-01-25 21:55 ` Alon Bar-Lev
2018-01-25 22:21 ` Robin H. Johnson
2018-01-25 22:48 ` Alon Bar-Lev [this message]
2018-01-27 14:26 ` [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification (v3) Michał Górny
2018-01-27 14:47 ` M. J. Everitt
2018-01-27 15:27 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2018-01-27 15:50 ` [gentoo-dev] " Nils Freydank
2018-01-28 8:58 ` [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification (v4) Michał Górny
2018-01-28 16:00 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2018-01-28 20:30 ` [gentoo-dev] " Andrew Barchuk
2018-01-29 7:21 ` Robin H. Johnson
2018-01-29 18:57 ` [gentoo-dev] [News item review] Portage rsync tree verification (v5) Michał Górny
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAOazyz0owevWNTYPEYnKzfQDi_bt-BsgAXPMsP5R2Zd045bmKg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=alonbl@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox