Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-28 Thread martin


Zitat von Hynek Schlawack :


Am 23.06.12 14:03, schrieb mar...@v.loewis.de:


I'm surprised gpg hasn't been mentioned here.  I think these are all
solved problems, most free software that is signed signs it with the
gpg key of the author.  In that case all that is needed is that the
cheeseshop allows the uploading of the signature.

For the record, the cheeseshop has been supporting pgp signatures
for about ten years now. Several projects have been using that for
quite a while in their releases.


Also for the record, it?s broken as of Python 3.2. See
http://bugs.python.org/issue10571


That's different, though: PyPI continues to support it just fine.
It's only distutils which has it broken. If you manually run gpg,
and manually upload through the web interface, it still works.

Regards,
Martin


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-28 Thread Hynek Schlawack
Am 23.06.12 14:03, schrieb mar...@v.loewis.de:

>> I'm surprised gpg hasn't been mentioned here.  I think these are all
>> solved problems, most free software that is signed signs it with the
>> gpg key of the author.  In that case all that is needed is that the
>> cheeseshop allows the uploading of the signature.
> For the record, the cheeseshop has been supporting pgp signatures
> for about ten years now. Several projects have been using that for
> quite a while in their releases.

Also for the record, it’s broken as of Python 3.2. See
http://bugs.python.org/issue10571
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-23 Thread martin

I'm surprised gpg hasn't been mentioned here.  I think these are all
solved problems, most free software that is signed signs it with the
gpg key of the author.  In that case all that is needed is that the
cheeseshop allows the uploading of the signature.


For the record, the cheeseshop has been supporting pgp signatures
for about ten years now. Several projects have been using that for
quite a while in their releases.

Regards,
Martin


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-23 Thread Floris Bruynooghe
Oh sorry, having read the thread this spawned from I see you're taking
about MS Windows singed binaries.  Something I know next to nothing
about, so ignore my babbling.

On 23 June 2012 11:52, Floris Bruynooghe  wrote:
> On 22 June 2012 17:56, Donald Stufft  wrote:
>> On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alexandre Zani wrote:
>>
>> Key distribution is the real issue though. If there isn't a key
>> distribution infrastructure in place, we might as well not bother with
>> signatures. PyPI could issue x509 certs to packagers. You wouldn't be
>> able to verify that the name given is accurate, but you would be able
>> to verify that all packages with the same listed author are actually
>> by that author.
>>
>> I've been sketching out ideas for key distribution, but it's very much
>> a chicken and egg problem, very few people sign their packages (because
>> nothing uses it currently), and nobody is motivated to work on
>> infrastructure
>> or tooling because no one signs their packages.
>
>
> I'm surprised gpg hasn't been mentioned here.  I think these are all
> solved problems, most free software that is signed signs it with the
> gpg key of the author.  In that case all that is needed is that the
> cheeseshop allows the uploading of the signature.  As for key
> distribution, the keyservers take care of that just fine and we'd
> probably see more and better attended signing parties at python
> conferences.
>
> Regards,
> Floris



-- 
Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom
www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-23 Thread Floris Bruynooghe
On 22 June 2012 17:56, Donald Stufft  wrote:
> On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alexandre Zani wrote:
>
> Key distribution is the real issue though. If there isn't a key
> distribution infrastructure in place, we might as well not bother with
> signatures. PyPI could issue x509 certs to packagers. You wouldn't be
> able to verify that the name given is accurate, but you would be able
> to verify that all packages with the same listed author are actually
> by that author.
>
> I've been sketching out ideas for key distribution, but it's very much
> a chicken and egg problem, very few people sign their packages (because
> nothing uses it currently), and nobody is motivated to work on
> infrastructure
> or tooling because no one signs their packages.


I'm surprised gpg hasn't been mentioned here.  I think these are all
solved problems, most free software that is signed signs it with the
gpg key of the author.  In that case all that is needed is that the
cheeseshop allows the uploading of the signature.  As for key
distribution, the keyservers take care of that just fine and we'd
probably see more and better attended signing parties at python
conferences.

Regards,
Floris
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-22 Thread Donald Stufft
Not at the moment, but I could gather them up and make them public later today. 
They 
are very rough draft at the moment.


On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Alexandre Zani wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Donald Stufft  (mailto:donald.stu...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alexandre Zani wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Key distribution is the real issue though. If there isn't a key
> > distribution infrastructure in place, we might as well not bother with
> > signatures. PyPI could issue x509 certs to packagers. You wouldn't be
> > able to verify that the name given is accurate, but you would be able
> > to verify that all packages with the same listed author are actually
> > by that author.
> > 
> > I've been sketching out ideas for key distribution, but it's very much
> > a chicken and egg problem, very few people sign their packages (because
> > nothing uses it currently), and nobody is motivated to work on
> > infrastructure
> > or tooling because no one signs their packages.
> > 
> 
> 
> Are those ideas available publicly? I would love to chip in. 

___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-22 Thread Alexandre Zani
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Donald Stufft  wrote:
> On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alexandre Zani wrote:
>
>
> Key distribution is the real issue though. If there isn't a key
> distribution infrastructure in place, we might as well not bother with
> signatures. PyPI could issue x509 certs to packagers. You wouldn't be
> able to verify that the name given is accurate, but you would be able
> to verify that all packages with the same listed author are actually
> by that author.
>
> I've been sketching out ideas for key distribution, but it's very much
> a chicken and egg problem, very few people sign their packages (because
> nothing uses it currently), and nobody is motivated to work on
> infrastructure
> or tooling because no one signs their packages.

Are those ideas available publicly? I would love to chip in.
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-22 Thread Donald Stufft
On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alexandre Zani wrote:
> 
> Key distribution is the real issue though. If there isn't a key
> distribution infrastructure in place, we might as well not bother with
> signatures. PyPI could issue x509 certs to packagers. You wouldn't be
> able to verify that the name given is accurate, but you would be able
> to verify that all packages with the same listed author are actually
> by that author.
> 
> 

I've been sketching out ideas for key distribution, but it's very much
a chicken and egg problem, very few people sign their packages (because
nothing uses it currently), and nobody is motivated to work on infrastructure
or tooling because no one signs their packages. 
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-22 Thread Alexandre Zani
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Donald Stufft  wrote:
> Ideally authors will be signing their packages (using gpg keys). Of course
> how to distribute keys is an exercise left to the reader.

Key distribution is the real issue though. If there isn't a key
distribution infrastructure in place, we might as well not bother with
signatures. PyPI could issue x509 certs to packagers. You wouldn't be
able to verify that the name given is accurate, but you would be able
to verify that all packages with the same listed author are actually
by that author.

>
> On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:
>
>  v.loewis.de> writes:
>
>
> See above. Also notice that such signing is already implemented, as part
> of PEP 381.
>
>
> BTW, I notice that the certificate for https://pypi.python.org/ expired a
> week
> ago ...
>
> Regards,
>
> Vinay Sajip
>
>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald.stufft%40gmail.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/alexandre.zani%40gmail.com
>
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-22 Thread Donald Stufft
Ideally authors will be signing their packages (using gpg keys). Of course 
how to distribute keys is an exercise left to the reader.


On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Vinay Sajip wrote:

>  v.loewis.de (http://v.loewis.de)> writes:
> 
> > 
> > See above. Also notice that such signing is already implemented, as part
> > of PEP 381.
> > 
> 
> 
> BTW, I notice that the certificate for https://pypi.python.org/ expired a week
> ago ...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vinay Sajip
> 
> 
> ___
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev@python.org (mailto:Python-Dev@python.org)
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe: 
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/donald.stufft%40gmail.com
> 
> 


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-22 Thread Vinay Sajip
  v.loewis.de> writes:

> 
> See above. Also notice that such signing is already implemented, as part
> of PEP 381.
> 

BTW, I notice that the certificate for https://pypi.python.org/ expired a week
ago ...

Regards,

Vinay Sajip


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com


Re: [Python-Dev] Signed packages

2012-06-22 Thread martin


Zitat von Antoine Pitrou :


On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:27:19 +0100
Paul Moore  wrote:


Signed binaries may be a solution. My experience with signed binaries
has not been exactly positive, but it's an option. Presumably PyPI
would be the trusted authority? Would PyPI and the downloaders need to
use SSL? Would developers need to have signing keys to use PyPI? And
more to the point, do the people designing the packaging solutions
have experience with this sort of stuff (I sure don't :-))?


The ones signing the binaries would have to be the packagers, not PyPI.


It depends. PyPI already signs all binaries (essentially) as part of the
mirror protocol. What this proves is that the mirror has not modified
the data compared to the copy of PyPI. If PyPI can be trusted not to modify
the binaries, then this also proves that the binaries are the same as
originally uploaded.

What this doesn't prove is that the upload was really made by the declared
author of the package (which could be prevented by signing the packages
by the original author); it also doesn't prove that the binaries are free
of malicous code (which no amount of signing can prove).


PyPI-signing of packages would not achieve anything, since PyPI cannot
vouch for the quality and non-maliciousness of uploaded files.


That's just not true. It can prove that the files have not been modified
by mirrors, caches, and the like, of which there are plenty in practice.


It would only serve as a replacement for SSL downloads.


See above. Also notice that such signing is already implemented, as part
of PEP 381.

Regards,
Martin


___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com