Linux

48697 readers

1376 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

198

Moving away from RHEL based distros, whats good ? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

214 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Hi, mostly i use REHL based distros like Centos/Rocky/Oracle for the solutions i develop but it seems its time to leave..

What good server/minimal distro you use ?

Will start to test Debian stable.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Your earlier comment complains about pulling images securely, presumably meaning signature verification, which I believe Flatpak does.

The report you linked is about tying downloaded sources to their author using public key infrastructure, which is a different issue. APT and dpkg don't do that, either. (I know this because I build and publish with those, too.)

Can you name a packaging system that does? I can't. I would like to see it (along with reproducible builds) integrated into the software ecosystem, and I think we're moving in that direction, but it will take time to become common.

I have my own criticisms of Flatpak, mostly regarding the backwards permissions model (packages grant themselves permissions by default) and sloppy sandboxing policies on Flathub, so I caution against blindly assuming it's safe. But claiming that it doesn’t support signing of releases is just plain false.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

This is not correct. APT always verifies cryptographic signature unless you explicitly disable it. Yet it's very important to understand who is signing packages. What kind of review process did the software go through? What kind of vetting did the package maintainer themselves go through?

If software is signed only by the upstream developer and no 3rd party review is done by a distribution this means trusting a stranger's account on a software forge.

Update: the Debian infrastructure supports checking gpg signatures from upstream developers i.e. on the tarballs published on software forges.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago

This is not correct. APT always verifies cryptographic signature unless you explicitly disable it.

You've misunderstood what I wrote.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I believe Flatpak does.

Flatpak does not authenticate files that it downloads. Please stop spreading misinformation that flatpak is secure. It's not.

https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak-builder/issues/435

If the flatpak (flathub?) repo was compromised and started serving malicious packages, the client would happily download & install them because it doesn't have any cryptographic authenticity checks.

APT and dpkg don’t do that

Apt does verify the authenticity of everything it downloads (by default) using PGP signatures on SHA256SUMS manifest files. This provides cryptographic authenticity of everything it downloads. Flatpak doesn't do this.

Again, this is clearly documented here https://wiki.debian.org/SecureApt

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Again, you're confusing two different things (sources vs. packages). I'm not going to argue with you, though. Good day.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I'm talking about the end-user securely downloading packages from the repo, not how the package maintainer obtains the software upstream.

How a package maintainer obtains the software from the source is dynamic and depends on the package. Ideally those releases are signed by the developer. In any case, if the package is poisoned when grabbing the source, it's much easier for the community to detect than a targeted MITM attack on a client obtaining it from the repo.

I can say that I do maintain a software project that's in the repo, and we do sign it with our PGP release key. Our Debian package maintainer does verify its authenticity by checking the release's signature. So the authenticity is checked both at the source and when downloading the package.