[Python-Dev] [python-committers] Do we need to sign Windows files with GnuPG?

[Donald Stufft]

> On Apr 3, 2015, at 6:38 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <mal at egenix.com> wrote:
> 
> On 04.04.2015 00:14, Steve Dower wrote:
>> The thing is, that's exactly the same goodness as Authenticode gives, except everyone gets that for free and meanwhile you're the only one who has admitted to using GPG on Windows :)
>> 
>> Basically, what I want to hear is that GPG sigs provide significantly better protection than hashes (and I can provide better than MD5 for all files if it's useful), taking into consideration that (I assume) I'd have to obtain a signing key for GPG and unless there's a CA involved like there is for Authenticode, there's no existing trust in that key.
> 
> Hashes only provide checks against file corruption (and then
> only if you can trust the hash values). GPG provides all the
> benefits of public key encryption on arbitrary files (not just
> code).
> 
> The main benefit in case of downloadable installers is to
> be able to make sure that the files are authentic, meaning that
> they were created and signed by the people listed as packagers.
> 
> There is no CA infrastructure involved as for SSL certificates
> or Authenticode, but it's easy to get the keys from key servers
> given the key signatures available from python.org's download
> pages.

FTR if we’re relying on people to get the GPG keys from the download
pages then there’s no additional benefit over just using a hash
published on the same page.

In order to get additional benefit we’d need to get Steve’s key
signed by enough people to get him into the strong set.

> 
> If you want to sign a package file using GPG, you will need
> to create your own key, upload it to the key servers and then
> place the signature up on the download page.
> 
> Relying only on Authenticode for Windows installers would
> result in a break in technology w/r to the downloads we
> make available for Python, since all other files are (usually)
> GPG signed:
> 
> https://www.python.org/ftp/python/3.4.3/
> 
> Cheers,
> --
> Marc-Andre Lemburg
> eGenix.com
> 
> Professional Python Services directly from the Source
>>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...        http://www.egenix.com/
>>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...             http://zope.egenix.com/
>>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 
> ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::
> 
> 
>   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
>    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
>           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
>               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
> 
> 
>> Cheers,
>> Steve
>> 
>> Top-posted from my Windows Phone
>> ________________________________
>> From: M.-A. Lemburg<mailto:mal at egenix.com>
>> Sent: ‎4/‎3/‎2015 10:55
>> To: Steve Dower<mailto:Steve.Dower at microsoft.com>; Larry Hastings<mailto:larry at hastings.org>; Python Dev<mailto:python-dev at python.org>; python-committers<mailto:python-committers at python.org>
>> Subject: Re: [python-committers] [Python-Dev] Do we need to sign Windows files with GnuPG?
>> 
>> On 03.04.2015 19:35, Steve Dower wrote:
>>>> My Windows development days are firmly behind me. So I don't really have an
>>>> opinion here. So I put it to you, Windows Python developers: do you care about
>>>> GnuPG signatures on Windows-specific files? Or do you not care?
>>> 
>>> The later replies seem to suggest that they are general goodness that nobody on Windows will use. If someone convinces me (or steamrolls me, that's fine too) that the goodness of GPG is better than a hash then I'll look into adding it into the process. Otherwise I'll happily add hash generation into the upload process (which I'm going to do anyway for the ones displayed on the download page).
>> 
>> FWIW: I regularly check the GPG sigs on all important downloaded
>> files, regardless of which platform they target, including the
>> Windows installers for Python or any other Windows installers
>> I use which provide such sigs.
>> 
>> The reason is simple:
>> The signature is a proof of authenticity which is not bound to
>> a particular file format or platform and before running .exes
>> it's good to know that they were built by the right people and
>> not manipulated by trojans, viruses or malicious proxies.
>> 
>> Is that a good enough reason to continue providing the GPG
>> sigs or do you need more proof of goodness ? ;-)
>> 
>> --
>> Marc-Andre Lemburg
>> eGenix.com
>> 
>> Professional Python Services directly from the Source
>>>>> Python/Zope Consulting and Support ...        http://www.egenix.com/
>>>>> mxODBC.Zope.Database.Adapter ...             http://zope.egenix.com/
>>>>> mxODBC, mxDateTime, mxTextTools ...        http://python.egenix.com/
>> ________________________________________________________________________
>> 
>> ::: Try our new mxODBC.Connect Python Database Interface for free ! ::::
>> 
>> 
>>   eGenix.com Software, Skills and Services GmbH  Pastor-Loeh-Str.48
>>    D-40764 Langenfeld, Germany. CEO Dipl.-Math. Marc-Andre Lemburg
>>           Registered at Amtsgericht Duesseldorf: HRB 46611
>>               http://www.egenix.com/company/contact/
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers

---
Donald Stufft
PGP: 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150403/13e80e15/attachment.sig>