From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 1856438555A3; Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:39:26 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1856438555A3
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1692286767;
	bh=beKa/kW1Dpbo5QnrLVlLHn1AMnNqaH2TiY3gyVyy8k4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=kN6GNFE0DhvbSivcpBR4T0ejL6h4WnjjELWiTwEBVXwVyQVAaDgyJBCAQQx4VDV3H
	 cGue+K9ja2dmBbhHS5lxjw8uZ6KmAP8dzhLsfY833IgGjlDhHpjD3Y65OdYLGh7alE
	 C7uUIoP1dtDQTJ0Y1EHg4UJ+p4JxNVltnpTrkCMU=
From: "mark at klomp dot org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: elfutils-devel@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug debuginfod/28204] extend webapi / verification with forthcoming
 signed-contents archives
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:39:25 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: elfutils
X-Bugzilla-Component: debuginfod
X-Bugzilla-Version: unspecified
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: mark at klomp dot org
X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rgoldber at redhat dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-28204-10460-cS6IqmhTv4@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-28204-10460@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-28204-10460@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <elfutils-devel.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D28204

--- Comment #20 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
(In reply to Frank Ch. Eigler from comment #18)
> > Doesn't that give a false sense of "security"?
> > It still rejects some stuff, but doesn't really protect against "falsif=
ying"
> > files, all a server has to do is not provide an IMA=20
>=20
> Yes, but trusted servers won't just do that.

But isn't the idea of checking the IMA signatures that you don't have to tr=
ust
the server providing the debuginfo files as the distro intended them?

> > If it is just to see what would happen if enabling ima file checking, t=
hen
> > it probably shouldn't reject anything. In that case it should warn for =
both
> > missing and invalid signatures, but still accept them.
>=20
> The difference between missing and invalid is that the latter is KNOWN ba=
d.
> An invalid signature is evidence that the file has a problem.

And a missing signature is UNKNOWN bad?

So both are bad in some way. Which imho means that if we support some kind =
of
permissive mode, then it should explicitly warn for both kind of baddness.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=