← Back to context

Comment by cjbprime

7 years ago

I agree that the distributor having control over offering different artifacts to different individuals is very risky.

I was assuming that the sites that you might `curl | bash` from are third-party sites (i.e. not your Linux distribution) that you don't have an existing trust relationship with, which makes it impossible to avoid this capability. That's the situation people use curl | bash in.

So I think this ability to individualize artifacts would still be present if we were receiving a .deb or apt key instead from that site.

> you'll have a saved copy of the key afterward

Yes, though since dpkg post-install scripts can modify arbitrary files (right?), you can't trust that any files on your disk are the ones that existed before the compromise. So couldn't the malicious key verify the malicious package, which then overwrites the copy of the package and key on-disk with the good versions that were given to everyone else?

> So I think this ability to individualize artifacts would still be present if we were receiving a .deb or apt key instead from that site.

I guess we need some other infrastructure or social practice on top in order to compare what different people see, and/or allow the distributor to commit to particular versions. (Then having the distributor not know whether someone is blindly installing a particular file without verification is necessary, but not sufficient, to deter this kind of attack.)