On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 07:46:13PM +0200, Tambet wrote: > Has anyone ever noticed that portage tree contains a lot of md5 hashes, > which are not at all important for using it? I think that it does not make > reliability or functionality smaller any bit if those would all stay in sync > servers - anyway, syncing would go much faster and this tree smaller. What > about removing all those md5 hashes and downloading them only when they're > needed? Umm, what are you on? There are no more MD5s in Manifest2. It should be only RMD160, SHA1, SHA256. If you DO find a Manifest with an MD5, I'd REALLY like to know about it.
As for the important of Manifests and the hashes, I'd like to offer the following as suggested reading: http://www.cs.arizona.edu/people/justin/packagemanagersecurity/ Specifically, see the papers page, and find the paper from CCS 2008 [1]. He DID solicit input from me on how Gentoo deals with the issue, and gave it fair coverage in my opinion. It's CRITICALLY important that the checksums go with the content, and that the checksums are later verified themselves against a known up to date source. If you're interested in the Gentoo side of it, specifically how it ties into tree-signing, read my gleps: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0057.html http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0058.html http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0059.html http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0060.html http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0061.html [1] Cappos, J. et al. "A Look In the Mirror: Attacks on Package Managers". (2008). Published in the proceedings of ACM CCS 2008. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85
pgprZuHMj1Wb3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
