Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 21:38 UTC, submitted by whorider
Privacy, Security, Encryption This news is already a week old, but it only got submitted to us today, and I didn't notice it all. As it turns out, two malicious software packages had been uploaded to, masquerading as valid .deb packages (a GNOME screensaver and theme, respectively).
Permalink for comment 400070
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Audit packages
by lemur2 on Thu 17th Dec 2009 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Audit packages"
Member since:

I, personally, would maintain that it is better and easier (and far more thorough) to have the distribution's maintainers worry about auditing each package.

While I agree with you in that repositories are the way to go, I don't really believe the above is true. Package maintainers are just guys like you and me, with little time to audit packages. The constant flux of security updates is a testimony of this.

Their audit needs to be that the source code being compiled into the package is the correct latest released code from the project.

Their audit needs to be that the source code is compiled correctly for their particular distribution, and that the package is set with the correct dependencies. Their audit needs to be those dependencies are all already available in the repository.

Their audit needs to be that the binary that is present in the new package is correct against the source code (which is also correct against the project's source code revision system, such as GIT).

Their audit needs to be that it compiled correctly, without warnings, and that it runs when test installed.

If they audit all these things (and it is their interest to maintain the distribution's reputation), then their package in their repository will not contain malware.

It doesn't mean going over the code with a fine tooth comb, it means only that the package is a correct representation (for that distribution) of the project's released code. The distribution maintainers are the only people really in a position to do this audit.

End user's can definitely take advantage of this, and thereby guarantee their systems will not get malware. There will be no malware if everything is open, public, and all viewable by many poeple who did not write the code.

After all, malware can only exist in closed, secret binary blobs, whose workings are visible only to the original (malicious) author(s).

If you have any doubts about the efficacy of this system, remember, distributions repositories have an impeccable record so far, after many years use across many distributions for thousands of packages. "Guarantee" is not too strong a word.

Edited 2009-12-17 08:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2