I deleted my last tweet, I think I misunderstood. I think you're saying there are code quality benefits to making your build reproducible, and you want developers to be better. OK, but you're mixing in security claims, I only really object to claims it prevents backdoors.
-
-
Please think it through, someone you trust is giving you a binary and source code, but it's not reproducible. You're saying "I dOn'T hAvE tHe sOuRcE cOdE", I'm saying "They *gave* you the code, and you *wanted* to build it anyway? Why is the reproducibility important?"
-
I have thought this through and have already answered all these questions. It doesn't seem productive to keep repeating them.
- 25 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Threat model: binary (eg alpine kernel) build service compromised, maliciously patches source files before builds. As auditor, you review the source code that you *think* gets build, but can't verify it actually is what your client runs, because no two build are identical.
-
we're not Linux from scratch and this isn't 1999. You usually don't run your own software distribution just because you want to know the binary that gets distributed for sure. That's what hashes are for.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
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.

