Re: security vs. configure

[Michael Still]

On 23 Apr 2001, Russ Allbery wrote:

> Michael Still <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Autoconf could run gnupg / pgp (if present) after generating the
> > configure script and produce a checksum on the script. If this was a
> > default action, then it would increase the chance of developers having
> > at least some checksumming.
>
> Better to sign the whole package, I'd think, and if you sign the whole
> package, an additional signature (I think you mean signature and not
> checksum) doesn't seem to add any value.

How many people use make dist though? My thinking was based on the fact
that the configure script is the bit that people seem to be concerned
about the most, because it is the first instance of some code being
blindly run.

Also, I imagine that people only regenerate the configure script when they
have to. I might modify my code, but unless I am a new requirement I can
check for with autoconf, why would I rerun autoconf?

I think a checksum is enough. I don't know the developers of most packages
from a bar of soap. At least with a checksum I know the file hasn't been
changed from it's original.

Then again, they can always update the checksum when they modify
configure.

Mikal

-- 
Michael Still (address@hidden)
  http://www.stillhq.com -- a whole bunch of Open Source stuff including PDF 
software...

"Grrrrrrr! I'm a volleyballing machine!"