[libre-riscv-dev] web-of-trust for code reviews to manage trusting dependencies
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
lkcl at lkcl.net
Tue Aug 27 11:55:02 BST 2019
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 11:05 AM Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> wrote:
> the idea is more that each individual developer would verify through the
> people they directly trust. every developer ends up with their own web of
ah. that's actually completely different. the "local" trust system
was the focus of research that i did into Advogato's Trust Metrics.
basically i added a feature to an experimental version which allowed
the *user* to be the "central seed" (instead of an external set).
*for certain scenarios* this turned out to be incredibly useful.
> > > for crev, the signing keys are only on the developer's computer (or other
> > > device used for signing), not the git server.
> > how are the signing keys independently audited as trustable?
> > *are* the signing keys independently audited as trustable?
> not sure.
(now that i understand what crev was designed for - code reviews - it
no longer matters... *except* if some tries to start using crev for
code *distribution*. then it *really* matters).
> > GPG has key-signature revocation. here is the procedure:
> > https://security.ias.edu/how-revoke-gnupgpgp-signature-key
> revocation is not the same as negative trust. revocation is where one
> person says they no longer trust someone (with the trust level reverting to
> no association). negative trust is where one person says that someone is
> not to be trusted, and that is transitive. so, for example, if i saw fred
> (made up person) do something untrustworthy, I could sign a negative trust
> record, where if you trusted me, then you would transitively distrust fred.
this was also the subject of "hot debate" in Advogato discussions, for
many years. it came down to the fact that "Negative" Certs - in a
social context - are so "loaded" that it was very deliberately *not*
it sounds basically, to me, like they've created a system that's
suitable for use in, say... slashdot. or even facebook.
at some point, they're going to realise that even for a single person,
evaluating the Certs (positive and negative), is beyond any one
individual to calculate.
they'll need an algorithm to do that, and the best one to use is a
"gas flow" algorithm (modified to be "breadth-first" rather than
the Ford-Fulkersson "gas flow" algorithm was the core of Advogato
Trust Metrics system. depth-first unfortunately consumed larger
computational resources than necessary.
> > when people start talking about making it mandatory, the problems with
> > "just gpg signatures" will start to show up.
> so, I guess the conclusion is that crev has some good ideas, but needs some
> serious protocol overhaul (which they might be willing to do, it's still in
> alpha releases, I think).
right. ok. now that i know (finally) that it's for code *review*
purposes, then i can bring down the "Defcon" level by three to four
code *review* purposes, being optional and a "social and manual
decision-making aid", is completely different, and the consequences of
mistakes are nowhere near as drastically bad as for code
if however, as that online article starts suggesting, crev starts
getting proposed - or even used - for code *distribution* purposes,
the "Defcon" level absolutely has to get cranked back up to the
absolute max, and, from what you've told me and from what i've seen,
crev is in *no way* suitable for the task.
it would be better to start again, by doing the research properly,
doing a comparative analysis of:
* GNU guix
* Mozilla's failed B2G projects' reliance on SSL Certificates, and the
* FreeBSD ports
* archlinux's pacman and their failure to include GPG-signing on packages
* suse/novell and redhat RPMs, and the vulnerabilities associated with
their failure to sign some of the critical information (i forget what
* debian and ubuntu's system, and why ubuntu is vulnerable when debian
is not, despite the same code and procedures being used for both
* npm, rubygems and others, and why relying on HTTPS does not work.
and many many more. that analysis *will* need to go into social
aspects, threat-scenario analysis, where no "insane" scenario shall be
considered "too insane" to be on the table for mitigation.
they also need to be warned - in advance - that only a handful of
people in the world have the mindset to cope with such a task, because
most people simply are, putting it bluntly, just not mentally equipped
to take the "smallest, most implausible" threat seriously.
the way that i illustrate this to people is to see what happens to the
probabilities in the following equation:
N = 10: pow(1-1/N, N) ==> 0.3486
N = 100: pow(1-1/N, N) ==> 0.3486
and it converges to 0.3678 somethingsomething.
now change that number, 1-1/N, by a small fraction. subtract 0.1 for
example. the effect amplifies so massively that by the time you get
to pow(0.9, 10000000) you're at near-zero. even pow(0.999999991,
100000000) the cumulative effect of even the *tiniest* change results
in an answer of 0.00012.
in simple "words", the more people involved (the more eyes), the more
important that even the tiniest security flaws become, because there
are simply more people to spot - and exploit - the flaws.
i.e. by the time you get to 1-10 million downloads a month, what was
formerly not even remotely worth taking seriously instead has to be
considered a high potential threat.
More information about the libre-riscv-dev