←back to thread

182 points yarapavan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.221s | source
Show context
neuroelectron ◴[] No.43616167[source]
Very suspicious article. Sounds like the "nothing to see here folks, move along" school of security.

Reproducibility is more like a security smell; a symptom you’re doing things right. Determinism is the correct target and subtly different.

The focus on supply chain is a distraction, a variant of The “trusting trust” attack Ken Thompson described in 1984 is still among the most elegant and devastating. Infected development toolchains can spread horizontally to “secure” builds.

Just because it’s open doesn’t mean anyone’s been watching closely. "50 years of security"? Important pillars of OSS have been touched by thousands of contributors with varying levels of oversight. Many commits predate strong code-signing or provenance tracking. If a compiler was compromised at any point, everything it compiled—including future versions of itself—could carry that compromise forward invisibly. This includes even "cleanroom" rebuilds.

replies(4): >>43616257 #>>43617725 #>>43621870 #>>43622202 #
lrvick ◴[] No.43616257[source]
The best defense we have against the Trusting Trust attack is full source bootstrapping, now done by two distros: Guix and Stagex.
replies(2): >>43616330 #>>43625793 #
AstralStorm ◴[] No.43616330[source]
No you do not. If you have not actually validated each and every source package your trust is only related to the generated binaries corresponding to the sources you had. The trusting trust attack was deployed against the source code of the compiler, poisoning specific binaries. Do you know if GCC 6.99 or 7.0 doesn't put a backdoor in some specific condition?

There's no static or dynamic analysis deployed to enhance this level of trust.

The initial attempts are simulated execution like in valgrind, all the sanitizer work, perhaps difference on the functional level beyond the text of the source code where it's too easy to smuggle things through... (Like on an abstracted conditional graph.)

We cannot even compare binaries or executables right given differing compiler revisions.

replies(4): >>43616446 #>>43616959 #>>43617254 #>>43618041 #
1. pabs3 ◴[] No.43618041[source]
Code review systems like CREV are the solution to backdoors being present in public source code.

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