Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Digital Signatures for the official Vim binaries on Windows

Expand Messages
  • Ben Fritz
    ... Maybe so you can install on Windows without the are you sure you want to run this file from an unverifiable source? . If it were signed I think it would
    Message 1 of 14 , Jan 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, Steve Hall <digit...@...> wrote:
      >
      > No policy, but I'd be curious to know what the OP believes to be
      > practically accomplished with signed files. Perhaps we're just talking
      > about the official binaries? Or just checksums?
      >

      Maybe so you can install on Windows without the "are you sure you want
      to run this file from an unverifiable source?". If it were signed I
      think it would be a less scary message.

      Personally I don't really care :-)

      --
      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
    • Steve Hall
      On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Philip Taron ... [...] ... This is a Microsoft scare tactic, there s no reason not to trust software
      Message 2 of 14 , Jan 2, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Philip Taron <philip.taron@...>
        wrote:
        > I'm talking about Authenticode signing, where the binary contains
        > signing and repudiation information.
        [...]
        > My main reason for desiring this is summed up here:
        > http://www.hanselman.com/blog/UsingCodeSigningCertificatesToSignDownloadedMSIsAndBuildReputationWithIE9SmartScreen.aspx
        >
        > Here's examples of the differences between signed and unsigned
        > binaries: http://imgur.com/a/7xJK0 (I used a recently downloaded
        > version of Firefox as an example.)

        This is a Microsoft scare tactic, there's no reason not to trust
        software if you are confident of where you got it. You can eat food
        from state certified restaurants and get sick, or eat at a neighbor's
        house and feel great. (I'd even argue the latter is safer.)

        So I'd love to see the point made using Free Software and not
        requiring license fees or key hosting by whatever corporation. (Unless
        the case is being made that only state sponsored food should be
        allowed.)

        > Cream distro -- well, that one suffers from the same problem. I'd
        > prefer to use the vim.org/Bram build of Vim if I can, since I can be
        > sure it is fully up to date and doesn't have janky personal
        > customizations and patches.

        You obviously don't get the point of Free Software. :)

        > Why does it take funds? Because not everyone can be a certificate
        > authority. There is a chain of trust that originates in the set of
        > root certificates installed on everyone's machines, and self-signed
        > certs must be manually added on every machine that wants to trust
        > that author is who he or she claims they are.

        It only takes funds because the crooks that are trying to scare
        everyone into a fully sponsored "security solutions" need money to
        survive.

        --
        Steve Hall [ digitect dancingpaper com ]

        --
        You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
        Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
        For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
      • Philip Taron
        ... I m only interested in the official binaries. The problem of determining that the sources retrieved from the official master repository are the same
        Message 3 of 14 , Jan 2, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          No policy, but I'd be curious to know what the OP believes to be
          practically accomplished with signed files. Perhaps we're just talking
          about the official binaries? Or just checksums?

          I'm only interested in the official binaries. The problem of determining that the sources retrieved from the official master repository are the same sources is something else entirely.

          1. Integrity. I know the binary has not been modified in transit in some form. Catalog signing, like the MD5 file talked about here, also accomplishes this, provided that there is something that signs it, and so on.

          2. Identity. I know that the person claiming to be Bram Moolenaar (or Steve Hall, or whomever) is certified to be that person by some certification authority I already trust.

          3. Authorship. Combining the previous benefits, I know the file is intact, that Bram really is a person/org, and that he really produced this file. 

          4. Provenance. I know that the binary I got from vim.org actually originated with someone who both controlled vim.org and also the private cert for codesigning the binaries there. (This is only if vim.org supports https, which it currently does not.)

          5. UX benefits. I'm restricting this to Windows, since I have no idea of the state of PKI/code signing/etc on Linux or MacOS. On Windows, executables that are digitally signed are presented differently than binaries which are unsigned.

          6. Revokability. If the prior constraints do not hold true (due to a systems failure, vulnerability, or loss of private key, for instance) the certificate can be revoked immediately.

          7. Individual revokability. If a particular binary suffers from a very bad vulnerability, it can explicitly be pulled.

          There's also a couple white-listing benefits, which are completely ancillary.

          8. Anti-malware benefits. Most AV engines (and in particular the one used by MS, for instance in Security Essentials) are able to author whitelist signatures for known good certs.  

          9. Reputation services (like Smart Screen for downloads in IE9). Over time, these can provide actual trust benefits (like http://www.hanselman.com/blog/UsingCodeSigningCertificatesToSignDownloadedMSIsAndBuildReputationWithIE9SmartScreen.aspx illustrates.)

          In reality, my personal motivation is to get rid of that damn unsigned dialog, but from an objective standpoint my motivations don't matter. :)

          Philip

          --
          You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
          Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
          For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
        • tux.
          No one said vim.org will never be compromised. -- You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you
          Message 4 of 14 , Jan 2, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            No one said vim.org will never be compromised.

            --
            You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
            Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
            For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
          • Philip Taron
            ... Dare I note that both sourceforge.net and vim.org are not offered over https? Without that, there s no way to know whether I m eating at a mockup of my
            Message 5 of 14 , Jan 2, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
               
              This is a Microsoft scare tactic, there's no reason not to trust
              software if you are confident of where you got it. You can eat food
              from state certified restaurants and get sick, or eat at a neighbor's
              house and feel great. (I'd even argue the latter is safer.)

              Dare I note that both sourceforge.net and vim.org are not offered over https? Without that, there's no way to know whether I'm eating at a mockup of my neighbor's house or at the house itself.
               
              So I'd love to see the point made using Free Software and not
              requiring license fees or key hosting by whatever corporation. (Unless
              the case is being made that only state sponsored food should be
              allowed.)

              > Cream distro -- well, that one suffers from the same problem. I'd
              > prefer to use the vim.org/Bram build of Vim if I can, since I can be
              > sure it is fully up to date and doesn't have janky personal
              > customizations and patches.

              You obviously don't get the point of Free Software. :)

              Hey, enough with the hate, suffixed with smiley faces as it is. Anything prefaced with the phase "I prefer" surely is meant only in a personal manner. More power to you for creating and maintaining Cream. It's not _my_ preference.
               
              > Why does it take funds? Because not everyone can be a certificate
              > authority. There is a chain of trust that originates in the set of
              > root certificates installed on everyone's machines, and self-signed
              > certs must be manually added on every machine that wants to trust
              > that author is who he or she claims they are.

              It only takes funds because the crooks that are trying to scare
              everyone into a fully sponsored "security solutions" need money to
              survive.

              Root of trust, distribution of keys, revocation, and the other associated issues with a global PKI are real problems. In a free software context, see the hack on kernel.org and GNU savannah...


              Digitally signing the binaries wouldn't have eliminated either of these problems, but would have made cleaning up after them quite a bit easier.

              Philip 

              --
              You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
              Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
              For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
            • Philip Taron
              ... On consideration, I apologize for the janky characterization. It was uncalled for. Philip -- You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. Do
              Message 6 of 14 , Jan 2, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                > Cream distro -- well, that one suffers from the same problem. I'd
                > prefer to use the vim.org/Bram build of Vim if I can, since I can be
                > sure it is fully up to date and doesn't have janky personal
                > customizations and patches.

                You obviously don't get the point of Free Software. :)

                Hey, enough with the hate, suffixed with smiley faces as it is. Anything prefaced with the phase "I prefer" surely is meant only in a personal manner. More power to you for creating and maintaining Cream. It's not _my_ preference.

                On consideration, I apologize for the "janky" characterization. It was uncalled for.

                Philip

                --
                You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
              • Ernie Rael
                ... When I log into sf.net I start getting an https URL. -ernie -- You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply
                Message 7 of 14 , Jan 2, 2012
                • 0 Attachment


                  On 1/2/2012 8:43 PM, Philip Taron wrote:


                  Dare I note that both sourceforge.net and vim.org are not offered over https? Without that, there's no way to know whether I'm eating at a mockup of my neighbor's house or at the house itself.
                   

                  When I log into sf.net I start getting an https URL.

                  -ernie

                  --
                  You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                  Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                  For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                • Bram Moolenaar
                  ... It s a lot of hassle to get this certification, costs quite a bit of money (several thousand dollars), and only gives a little bit of protection. The
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jan 4, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Philip Taron wrote:

                    > I noticed for some time now that the official Vim binaries distributed
                    > on vim.org for Windows users aren't digitally signed.
                    >
                    > Is this due to lack of funds, lack of desire, technical limitations,
                    > or personal choice?
                    >
                    > If it is lack of funds, I'd like to donate so this could happen.

                    It's a lot of hassle to get this certification, costs quite a bit of
                    money (several thousand dollars), and only gives a little bit of
                    protection. The obvious way around it is to just replace the signed
                    binary with a not signed binary, hardly anyone would notice.

                    In practice messing with the files has never happened and if it did it
                    would most likely be detected and fixed quickly.

                    Trojan horses are a big problem, but the signature is a very weak
                    protection against them.

                    --
                    If cars evolved at the same rate as computers have, they'd cost five euro,
                    run for a year on a couple of liters of petrol, and explode once a day.

                    /// Bram Moolenaar -- Bram@... -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\
                    /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\
                    \\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org ///
                    \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org ///

                    --
                    You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                    Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                    For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                  • Philip Taron
                    ... I ll drop the topic. Thanks for providing the current consensus opinion. Philip -- You received this message from the vim_dev maillist. Do not top-post!
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jan 4, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      It's a lot of hassle to get this certification, costs quite a bit of
                      money (several thousand dollars), and only gives a little bit of
                      protection.  The obvious way around it is to just replace the signed
                      binary with a not signed binary, hardly anyone would notice.

                      In practice messing with the files has never happened and if it did it
                      would most likely be detected and fixed quickly.

                      Trojan horses are a big problem, but the signature is a very weak
                      protection against them.

                      I'll drop the topic. Thanks for providing the current consensus opinion.

                      Philip

                      --
                      You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
                      Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
                      For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.