for closed-source, i agree there's a tradeoff between ensuring build integrity and ensuring source secrecy. for the rest of the world, the only downside is that it is some work; i think it's worth it to eliminate SPOFs and am glad when @ReproBuilds et al receive funding to do it!
-
-
Replying to @wiretapped @RichFelker and
Huh, that's the first time I've seen a pro-repro person acknowledge literally any flaw in it. Let me ask you this, do you agree that you can eliminate the same SPOFs *today*? I understand the benefits of repro builds, do you understand the problems?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso @RichFelker and
you're saying you can eliminate the SPOF by building software oneself, but i assume you aren't saying it would be practical for everyone to actually do this. i'm saying repro builds enable everyone's phones and laptops to stop relying on build SPOFs in a way that is practical.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wiretapped @RichFelker and
You don't have to build it yourself, you can choose someone you trust to build it. That is required in your system too, how do you imagine users will verify the build can be reproduced? They nominate a trusted party to check.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @taviso @RichFelker and
Leif Ryge Retweeted Leif Ryge
The user doesn't need to pick "a" (singular) party; they can pick several independent parties and require build signatures from m of n of them. (But their software update mechanism should come pre-configured to trust several, so actually they do nothing.)https://twitter.com/wiretapped/status/1265028062074241027 …
Leif Ryge added,
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wiretapped @RichFelker and
How will they trust the software update mechanism?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso @wiretapped and
Is the answer that they will need to pick "a" (singular) party?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @taviso @RichFelker and
that is another orthogonal problem, but say it came preinstalled on their computer. yes, they are trusting one party at the beginning; reproducible builds do not solve the need to trust your hardware. but with repro they can be protected from that party's subsequent compromise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @wiretapped @RichFelker and
Yes, every problem inconvenient to your argument is "orthogonal". You need to pick a (singular) vendor you trust. We've already established that vendor can produce trusted builds from source code. Why do you need reproducible builds?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @taviso @RichFelker and
The need to trust that a singular vendor is honest-at-the-moment-you-get-the-computer does not mean that you also must rely on them (or any other SPOFs in your software supply chain) continuing to be honest after that point.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
**Yes it does** In your system, end-users can't reproduce builds themselves - somebody has to do it for them. This has to be true, because if they can verify themselves, then they don't need reproducible builds.
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.