Summary: | app-portage/gentoolkit-0.6.3-r1: eclean-package support for Local XPAK packages | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | inkflaw <xiangzhedev> |
Component: | Binary packages support | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED CANTFIX | ||
Severity: | major | CC: | tools-portage |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- |
Description
inkflaw
2024-01-06 01:48:43 UTC
This is mentioned at https://www.gentoo.org/news/2023/12/29/Gentoo-binary.html under 'I’ve made binary packages myself and portage refuses to use them now!'. The probblem is that xpak does not support signing but to be secure, you need your Portage to require signatures in binpkgs. Otherwise, an attacker could just inject xpaks into the binhost and then you'd fetch and install them with no verification... I don't think we can really do anything here. I recommend you switch your local binpkg creation to gpkg and sign them instead. If you have a suggestion which wouldn't compromise the above, let us know though. (In reply to Sam James from comment #1) > Otherwise, an attacker could just inject xpaks into the binhost and then > you'd fetch and install them with no verification... We could add a binrepos.conf option to specify all packages from a particular binhost must be signed, and then at download/verification time simply reject any remote packages from that binhost that do not have a valid signature. (In reply to Sam James from comment #1) > This is mentioned at > https://www.gentoo.org/news/2023/12/29/Gentoo-binary.html under 'I’ve made > binary packages myself and portage refuses to use them now!'. > > The probblem is that xpak does not support signing but to be secure, you > need your Portage to require signatures in binpkgs. > > Otherwise, an attacker could just inject xpaks into the binhost and then > you'd fetch and install them with no verification... > > I don't think we can really do anything here. I recommend you switch your > local binpkg creation to gpkg and sign them instead. > > If you have a suggestion which wouldn't compromise the above, let us know > though. But I had add binpkg-signing and BINPKG_GPG_SIGNING_GPG_HOME="/etc/portage/gnupg" BINPKG_GPG_SIGNING_KEY in my make.conf, that's why I confuse here |