[arch-devops] Arch Linux ISO Checksums on archlinux.org - Arch-devops - lists.archlinux.org

newer
[arch-devops] [RFC] Planning...

[arch-devops] Arch Linux ISO Checksums on archlinux.org

older
[arch-devops] Arch DevOps mailing...

Christian Rebischke

22 Feb 2016 22 Feb '16

4:22 p.m.

Hello, Linux Mint had a security breach [1] and was serving an infected ISO. I think this would be a good moment for thinking about our Arch Linux Download-page on [2]. I recommend to change the checksums. MD5 and SHA1 are both broken.[3][4] What do you think about using SHA256 ( or even better SHA512 ) for this? Maybe we should also sign the ISO with a GPG-Key. I don't mean that we should remove the MD5 checksum but we should add some other checksum and sign the ISO. You can call me paranoid but I don't want too see such a security fail on archlinux.org Best regards, Chris Arch Linux Security Team [1] http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/02/linux-mint-hit-by-malware-infection-... [2] https://www.archlinux.org/download/ [3] http://www.mathstat.dal.ca/~selinger/md5collision/ [4] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/10/sha-1_freestart.html

Attachments:

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 819 bytes)

Show replies by date

Doug Newgard

22 Feb 22 Feb

4:42 p.m.

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:22:40 +0100 Christian Rebischke wrote:

Hello, Linux Mint had a security breach [1] and was serving an infected ISO. I think this would be a good moment for thinking about our Arch Linux Download-page on [2]. I recommend to change the checksums. MD5 and SHA1 are both broken.[3][4]

What do you think about using SHA256 ( or even better SHA512 ) for this? Maybe we should also sign the ISO with a GPG-Key.

It already is signed.

I don't mean that we should remove the MD5 checksum but we should add some other checksum and sign the ISO.

You can call me paranoid but I don't want too see such a security fail on archlinux.org

Best regards,

Chris

Arch Linux Security Team

[1] http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/02/linux-mint-hit-by-malware-infection-... [2] https://www.archlinux.org/download/ [3] http://www.mathstat.dal.ca/~selinger/md5collision/ [4] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/10/sha-1_freestart.html

Levente Polyak

4:55 p.m.

On February 22, 2016 4:22:40 PM GMT+01:00, Christian Rebischke wrote:

Maybe we should also sign the ISO with a GPG-Key.

I don't mean that we should remove the MD5 checksum but we should add some other checksum and sign the ISO.

The ISO is actually signed, above the mentioned checksums [0] you can find the signature file [1]. Cheers, Levente [0] https://www.archlinux.org/download/ [1] https://www.archlinux.org/iso/2016.02.01/archlinux-2016.02.01-dual.iso.sig

Christian Rebischke

23 Feb 23 Feb

4:13 p.m.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 04:55:17PM +0100, Levente Polyak wrote:

On February 22, 2016 4:22:40 PM GMT+01:00, Christian Rebischke wrote:

...
Maybe we should also sign the ISO with a GPG-Key.

I don't mean that we should remove the MD5 checksum but we should add some other checksum and sign the ISO.

The ISO is actually signed, above the mentioned checksums [0] you can find the signature file [1].

Cheers, Levente

[0] https://www.archlinux.org/download/ [1] https://www.archlinux.org/iso/2016.02.01/archlinux-2016.02.01-dual.iso.sig

Sorry guys, there I was too fast and inattentive. But, however, what do you think about adding a stronger checksum to it? I know that a GPG-signatures + MD5 or SHA1 would be enough but I know enough people who just check the checksum and don't care about signatures. regards, chris

Johannes Löthberg

24 Feb 24 Feb

3:35 a.m.

On 23/02, Christian Rebischke wrote:

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 04:55:17PM +0100, Levente Polyak wrote:

...
On February 22, 2016 4:22:40 PM GMT+01:00, Christian Rebischke wrote:

...
Maybe we should also sign the ISO with a GPG-Key.

I don't mean that we should remove the MD5 checksum but we should add some other checksum and sign the ISO.

The ISO is actually signed, above the mentioned checksums [0] you can find the signature file [1].

Cheers, Levente

[0] https://www.archlinux.org/download/ [1] https://www.archlinux.org/iso/2016.02.01/archlinux-2016.02.01-dual.iso.sig

Sorry guys, there I was too fast and inattentive. But, however, what do you think about adding a stronger checksum to it? I know that a GPG-signatures + MD5 or SHA1 would be enough but I know enough people who just check the checksum and don't care about signatures.

The checksums aren't for security, and anyone who replaced the tarball could most likely change the checksum as well. -- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/

Jens Adam

22 Feb 22 Feb

5:21 p.m.

Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:22:40 +0100 Christian Rebischke :

What do you think about using SHA256 ( or even better SHA512 ) for this? Maybe we should also sign the ISO with a GPG-Key.

The ISO is already signed: https://www.archlinux.org/iso/2016.02.01/archlinux-2016.02.01-dual.iso.sig Dunno how it's done though, I would have expected something around here: https://projects.archlinux.org/archiso.git/tree/configs/releng/build.sh#n204 ... perhaps it's done manually on upload. Also see https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/47775 and https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-releng/2016-February/003634.html for a more universal/personal approach. --byte

2989

Age (days ago)

2991

Last active (days ago)

Download

5 comments

5 participants

tags

participants (5)

Christian Rebischke
Doug Newgard
Jens Adam
Johannes Löthberg
Levente Polyak