| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <1432058889.3277.73.camel@infradead.org> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:08:09 +0100 From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>, Abelardo Ricart III <aricart@...nix.com>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, LSM List <linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz> Subject: Re: Should we automatically generate a module signing key at all? On Tue, 2015-05-19 at 10:58 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > > Throwing away the key is outright impossible in some contexts. > > https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds Are any of the benefits described at https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds/About *not* just as achievable with the method I suggested — where you throw away the key and just validate that your builds are identical *except* for the signatures... which you can reuse, since your builds were identical. -- dwmw2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists