Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 16th Dec 2009 21:38 UTC, submitted by whorider
Thread beginning with comment 400024
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
"
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.
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





Member since:
2007-02-17
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.
If you stick to using the distributions repositories via the package manager, then that is what you are effectively doing.
Downloading packages (using a web browser or whatever) short-circuits the audit of the distribution's repository maintainers. Whoever made that package could have put anything at all in it. You would probably be very lucky to spot anything untoward yourself.
I, personally, would avoid downloading packages from outside the distribution's repository and installing them using gdebi (or dpkg, or whatever you are using). The reason why I would avaoid it is because you open yourself up to trojans if you do this (as indeed what happened in the original article that this thread is about).
Edited 2009-12-17 01:18 UTC