Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Sign hand hash release files #1438

Closed
hasufell opened this issue Feb 24, 2021 · 12 comments
Closed

Sign hand hash release files #1438

hasufell opened this issue Feb 24, 2021 · 12 comments
Labels
CI Continuous integration old_type: distribution type: enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@hasufell
Copy link
Member

I can't verify the validity and the authorship of the release files currently.

You can do, e.g.:

$ sha256sum --tag * > SHA256SUMS
$ gpg --detach-sign SHA256SUMS

And then upload both SHA256SUMS and SHA256SUMS.sig.

@jneira jneira added CI Continuous integration type: bug Something isn't right: doesn't work as intended, documentation is missing/outdated, etc.. labels Feb 24, 2021
@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented Feb 24, 2021

Yeah, it is a must from a security point of view, thanks for pointing it out. Imo, it should be automated in the release github action script

@hasufell
Copy link
Member Author

Yeah, it is a must from a security point of view, thanks for pointing it out. Imo, it should be automated in the release github action script

secure gpg signing cannot be automated

@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented Feb 24, 2021

oh, sorry i dont know much about the topic so sure i am missing obvious things: i thought you could ran those commands in the script and upload the result with the binaries. From a quick read it seems you could upload a private key to do it: https://zambrovski.medium.com/foss-ci-cd-with-github-actions-c65c37236c19

In any case we could do it locally for this release: @Ailrun have you done something similar in the past? (i can try to do it in my windows machine though, i suppose)

@hasufell
Copy link
Member Author

hasufell commented Feb 24, 2021

From a quick read it seems you could upload a private key to do it:

I advise against that. The point of gpg is that no one except the owner knows about the password (and the private key) and that it identifies a person (and that I can call that person and do a fingerprint verification of their key). Creating those two files could simply be part of the release procedure. It takes maybe 2 minutes. I don't see much value in automating that.

@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented Feb 24, 2021

I advise against that. The point of gpg is that no one except the owner knows about the password and that it identifies a person (and that I can call that person and do a fingerprint verification of their key).

I see and (partially?) agree

Creating those two files could simply be part of the release procedure. It takes maybe 2 minutes. I don't see much value in automating that.

Well it is more about the process overhead, it is one thing you dont have to remember or think about if the process works correctly

@hasufell
Copy link
Member Author

it is one thing you dont have to remember

Sure, that's why there could be a release document, outlining all the steps with commands.

@hasufell
Copy link
Member Author

any progress?

@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented Jun 17, 2021

Would make sense start only with $ sha256sum --tag * > SHA256SUMS in the ci script?

@hasufell
Copy link
Member Author

I think it only makes sense to have both.

@jneira
Copy link
Member

jneira commented Jun 17, 2021

I see, if we add an artifact to release i guess we should have a SHA256SUMS-rev1 and SHA256SUMS-rev1.sig

@hasufell
Copy link
Member Author

I see, if we add an artifact to release i guess we should have a SHA256SUMS-rev1 and SHA256SUMS-rev1.sig

No, you want SHA256SUMS and SHA256SUMS.sig for the entirety of the release assets.

@jneira jneira added type: enhancement New feature or request and removed type: bug Something isn't right: doesn't work as intended, documentation is missing/outdated, etc.. labels Jan 31, 2022
@michaelpj
Copy link
Collaborator

I think we did this?

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
CI Continuous integration old_type: distribution type: enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants