←back to thread

764 points bertman | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.21s | source
Show context
c0l0 ◴[] No.43484720[source]
I never really understood the hype around reproducible builds. It seems to mostly be a vehicle to enable tivoization[0] while keeping users sufficiently calm. With reproducible buiilds, a vendor can prove to users that they did build $binary from $someopensourceproject, and then digitally sign the result so that it - and only it - would load and execute on the vendor-provided and/or vendor-controlled platform. But that still kills effective software freedom as long as I, the user, cannot do the same thing with my own build (whether it is unmodified or not) of $someopensourceproject.

Therefore, I side with Tavis Ormandy on this debate: https://web.archive.org/web/20210616083816/https://blog.cmpx...

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization

replies(12): >>43484745 #>>43484754 #>>43484942 #>>43485078 #>>43485108 #>>43485155 #>>43485403 #>>43485551 #>>43485635 #>>43486702 #>>43487034 #>>43492779 #
1. rcxdude ◴[] No.43485635[source]
It basically means that not everybody needs to build from source code if they want to verify that the binaries they're using haven't had malware injected during the build process. I.e. so long as enough people check that they can reproduce the build, and call out any case where it doesn't, everyone else can just use the binaries without building from source. This means auditing efforts can focus just on the source code, which is a lot more tractable (but still hard, and imperfect. But it means a potential attacker needs to work a lot harder, as opppsed to a compromise of the build servers basically giving them free reign without much risk of detection).

It doesn't really do anything at all for tivoisation, Tivo managed it just fine without reproducable builds.