> @pmatilai How do we decide when a package "fails" verification with multiple signatures? Would we have a policy tunable? Some kind of indicator as a "primary" signature? Or something else?
Hmm, I thought it was in the description as it's been discussed elsewhere but apparently not - will fix. The initial implementation will indeed simply require all signatures to pass. I expect us to have various extra controls later. Rpm currently has disablers like RPMVSF_NORSAHEADER that operate on the tag level because that's how the signatures are spread out per algorithm, I think we'd extend this to simply operate on algorithm level instead, which means you can explicitly disable eg an algorithm considered compromised and if that's the only thing there was, you fail to get a positive verification. As for unknown signatures, I hadn't really gotten there yet. But there is indeed only one possible default: to ignore anything unknown, because that's the only way to deal with forward compatibility - like @simo5 said. If in doubt, think about this: we add this new RPMTAG_OPENPGP signature tag into rpm now. Older rpm versions simply do not know about this tag, so they will not look there, much less try to verify anything in there. And that's exactly what allows forward compatibility to exist: older rpm versions can still verify the packages to the best of their abilities, we cannot expect them to do anything more. And that's exactly what we must do with the new signatures too - just ignore if not known. If there are no known signatures at all then you fail to get a positive verification, and that's again how it should be. Note all the talk about positive verification: as a reminder, rpm 6.0 will ship with enforcing signature checking on by default. So you need to make that assumption when talking about this stuff now, otherwise none of it makes any sense. Just like rpm 4.x default signature behavior makes no sense whatsoever. -- Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3385#issuecomment-2461534152 You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/3385/[email protected]>
_______________________________________________ Rpm-maint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
