[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: advise against using Proton Mail for Debian work?



On 2023-11-15 11:01:35 +0100 (+0100), Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
[...]
> I was recently discussing with pypi and core python developers,
> and it seems that their take is very different than ours.
> 
> It seems that pypi completely removed support for signed updates,
> and instead now verification happens if you upload from a github
> pipeline.
> 
> It has been suggested that I'm a bit paranoid for stating that
> putting my private key on a microsoft server renders the signature
> with that key completely meaningless.
> 
> I of course disagree, but the opinion of people in such key
> positions is easily valued more.
> 
> Perhaps we need an explicit policy in how to handle keys, since
> there are very different opinions about what it is ok to do with
> them.

I replied to you there too, but you still never seemed to be able to
explain... why do you need to put an OpenPGP key on the service
you're using to upload Python packages (not Debian packages) to
PyPI, given that PyPI doesn't support uploading OpenPGP signatures
anyway?

If you're equating PyPI's "trusted publishers" feature with signing
packages, you've misunderstood the intent. It's a way of delegating
upload authentication to public identity providers in order to
better secure upload automation in CI systems (in lieu of giving
them a fixed username+password or long-lived API token):

https://blog.pypi.org/posts/2023-04-20-introducing-trusted-publishers/

If you're going to be concerned about something with that particular
feature, I think it should probably be that they've so far only
implemented support for GitHub Actions; though it sounds like
they're willing to entertain other authentication providers if
someone is interested enough to write the necessary drivers/config
for them. But to reiterate, PyPI's old "you can upload detached
signatures" feature was never used to authenticate anything, it
served an entirely different purpose. The "trusted publishers"
feature really has no similarity with it whatsoever.

Yes I'm also annoyed that they saw no value in software authors
uploading signatures for their release artifacts, I argued
repeatedly in favor of keeping it, but the PyPI maintainers (rightly
or wrongly) saw it as a mostly-unused attractive nuisance, and
assert that their more recent addition of HTTPS and strong checksums
mostly serves the purpose of users being able to double-check that
what they downloaded is what PyPI meant to serve them (even if they
can't as easily double-check that what they downloaded is what the
author believes was originally uploaded).
-- 
Jeremy Stanley

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: