Reproducible builds make most sense together with open source, of course. And it's of value even if nobody is constantly verifying the builds. Simply the point that they could mitigates the vector of a malicious builds server. Source level backdoors are certainly not addressed.
-
-
Replying to @rene_mobile @fugueish and
You can prove the build server isn't compromised, but you can't prove you're not trying to hide a backdoor, right? So users still have to trust you, and you could get the same benefit from getting a third party to privately repro the build for you...
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
I don't fully agree. It is still easier to hide a backdoor in (obfuscated) binary code than it is in (written-to-be-maintainable) source code. Config should ideally be included. And there are other code quality benefits of reproducible builds besides security (testing, deltas).
2 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @rene_mobile @taviso and
What have I done by disagreeing with
@taviso? (Seriously, this is a very good centithread, and there are not many that still make sense beyond a 100 replies
)pic.twitter.com/xhhO1Xfa7w1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rene_mobile @fugueish and
I think people generally agree now that reproducible builds don't prevent backdoors. That's good, but now they want to argue for other fuzzier benefits, so it's harder to follow that!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Oh, I never thought they _prevented_ backdoors, only that some of the easier vectors for introducing them are being mitigated. And that seems a good thing, especially in combination with my strong suspicion (only anecdata, though) that it helps code (or at least build) quality.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rene_mobile @taviso and
And since I can't see any real harm with reproducible builds (besides the work it takes to set up in the first place) - i.e. no runtime overhead etc - I don't see the usual discussion of cost of mitigation measures to factor in much in this debate. So, why not build reproducibly?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rene_mobile @taviso and
The auditing / trust benefits are largely theoretical, esp. outside tiny projects... but reproducible builds are very useful nonetheless. Regularly helps me debug problems, analyze the impact of changes and even figure how to build things properly. Bonus: smaller delta updates.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @DanielMicay @rene_mobile and
Let's not drift from the core discussion, maybe homeopathic remedies have the benefit of the placebo effect, but they don't cure disease. Do reproducible builds mean you don't need to trust the vendor, or eliminate backdoors? The answer is no, agreed?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @taviso @DanielMicay and
Repeating myself (it's getting too late here, stopping now): I don't see it as a binary answer. Reproducible builds let me trust the vendor less, make backdoors harder (by which extent is of course very debatable), and cost little. It's a spectrum of probabilities, not yes/no.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Well, we definitely disagree, but I've already explained why
I think there's nothing else to add.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.