git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / Atom feed
From: Santiago Torres <santiago@nyu.edu>
To: Colin Walters <walters@verbum.org>
Cc: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>, git <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: upstreaming https://github.com/cgwalters/git-evtag ?
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 13:09:34 -0500
Message-ID: <20180109180933.jbyidmmv5xpsjuae@LykOS.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1515465051.2895186.1228754952.0036D645@webmail.messagingengine.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2625 bytes --]

> > See Documentation/technical/hash-function-transition.txt
> > for how to do it.
> 
> evtag took me a day or two to write initially and doesn't
> impose any requirements on users except a small additional
> bit of software.

I agree that, in nature it shouldn't be difficult, but I also think that
things usually take longer when you try to minimize code reuse and
streamline the system's design.

> In contrast, working on hash-function-transition.txt?  That
> seems like it'd easily consume many person-months of work.
> And that plan only exists post-shatter.io, whereas git-evtag
> long predates both.

I think this is partly true. A hash transition has been brought up
multiple times pre-shattered. In my opinion shattered was a much-needed
PR push for SHA1 deprecation. In practice, things changed very little.

> > Personally I'd dislike to include ev-tags as it might send a signal
> > of "papering over sha1 issues instead of fixing it".
> 
> I don't agree.  I think it's pretty clear that a hash function transition
> would be a huge amount of work - not least because of course
> there are now at least two widely used implementations of git in C,
> plus https://www.eclipse.org/jgit/ plus...

I agree with Stefan here. I think it's better in the long-term to
push for hash-agnosticity. I don't know if git-evtag is hash agnostic,
but if it is not, then we have two transition plans to think about.

> 
> > push certificates are somewhat underdocumented, see the
> 
> Why not call them "git signed pushes"?  Junio's post
> even says "the signed push".

A signed push creates a push certificate.
> 
> And I just looked at this a little bit more but I'm not sure I
> see how this covers the same goal as evtags;

Correct me if I'm wrong (it's been a couple of years) but last time I
read about git evtags, they basically did the following:

    1. Create a signed tag.
    2. Create a signed statement of all the references.
    3. Create a checksum of the checked out code on the tag.
    4. Create a tarball of it.

I think 1) is already happening, 2) is very similar information to the
one contained in a push certificate. I don't know how necessary are 3)
and 4), but that's just my very opinionated take on it.

Full disclosure, I published a "competing" solution a couple of years
ago[1] but, in my personal opinion, I think push certificates can
achieve the same security guarantees as my system with very little
changes.

Cheers!
-Santiago.

[1] https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity16/technical-sessions/presentation/torres-arias

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

  reply index

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-01-08 20:12 Colin Walters
2018-01-08 20:34 ` Johannes Schindelin
2018-01-08 20:40 ` Santiago Torres
2018-01-08 20:42   ` Colin Walters
2018-01-08 20:51     ` Santiago Torres
2018-01-08 20:49   ` Stefan Beller
2018-01-08 20:54     ` Santiago Torres
2018-01-09  2:30     ` Colin Walters
2018-01-09 18:09       ` Santiago Torres [this message]
2018-01-09 20:38         ` Jonathan Nieder
2018-01-10 16:38           ` Santiago Torres

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180109180933.jbyidmmv5xpsjuae@LykOS.localdomain \
    --to=santiago@nyu.edu \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sbeller@google.com \
    --cc=walters@verbum.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://public-inbox.org/git
	git clone --mirror http://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/git

Newsgroups are available over NNTP:
	nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

 note: .onion URLs require Tor: https://www.torproject.org/
       or Tor2web: https://www.tor2web.org/

AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox