←back to thread

182 points yarapavan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
lrvick ◴[] No.43615037[source]
Great coverage, however it failed to mention code review and artifact signing as well as full source bootstrapping which are fundamental defenses most distros skip.

In our distro, Stagex, our threat model assumes at least one maintainer, sysadmin, or computer is compromised at all times.

This has resulted in some specific design choices and practices:

- 100% deterministic, hermetic, reproducible

- full source bootstrapped from 180 bytes of human-auditable machine code

- all commits signed by authors

- all reviews signed by reviewers

- all released artifacts are multi-party reproduced and signed

- fully OCI (container) native all the way down "FROM scratch"

- All packages easily hash-locked to give downstream software easy determinism as well

This all goes well beyond the tactics used in Nix and Guix.

As far as we know, Stagex is the only distro designed to strictly distrust maintainers.

https://stagex.tools

replies(4): >>43616418 #>>43617025 #>>43617119 #>>43621868 #
AstralStorm ◴[] No.43616418[source]
Good step.

It doesn't distrust the developers of the software though, so does not fix the biggest hole. Multiparty reproduction does not fix it either, that only distrusts the build system.

The bigger the project, the higher the chance something slips through, if even an exploitable bug. Maybe it's the developer themselves being compromised, or their maintainer.

Reviews are done on what, you have someone reviewing clang code? Binutils?

replies(3): >>43616685 #>>43616980 #>>43618024 #
1. pabs3 ◴[] No.43618024[source]
The code review problem is something solvable by something like CREV, where the developer community at large publishes the reviews they have done, and eventually there is good coverage of most things.

https://github.com/crev-dev/