On 29Aug2017 0801, Steve Dower wrote: > On 29Aug2017 0614, Wes Turner wrote: >> Wouldn't it be great to have the resources to source audit all code? >> (And expect everyone to GPG sign all their commits someday.) > > If you care this much, then you will find the resources to audit all the > code manually after you've downloaded it and before you've deployed it > (or delegate that trust/liability elsewhere). Plenty of larger companies > do it, especially for their high value targets. On re-reading it wasn't entirely clear, so just to clarify: * above, "you" is meant as a generally inclusive term (i.e., not just Wes, unless Wes is also a sysadmin who is trying to carefully control his network :) ) * below, "you" is specifically the author of the email (i.e., Wes) Cheers, Steve > The rest of your email is highly platform-specific, and so while they > are potential *uses* of this PEP, and I hope people will take the time > to investigate them, they don't contribute to it in any way. None of > these things will be added to or required by the core CPython release. > > Cheers, > Steve > >> Many Linux packaging formats do have checksums of all files in a >> package: {RPM, DEB,} >> >> Python Wheel packages do have a manifest with SHA256 file checksums. >> bdist_wheel.write_record(): >> >> https://bitbucket.org/pypa/wheel/src/5d49f8cf18679d1bc6f3e1e414a5df3a1e492644/wheel/bdist_wheel.py?at=default&fileviewer=file-view-default#bdist_wheel.py-436 >> >> >> Is there a tool for checking these manifest and file checksums and >> signatures? >> >> Which keys can sign for which packages? IIUC, any key loaded into the >> local keyring is currently valid for any package? >> >> "ENH: GPG signatures, branch-environment map (GitFS/HgFS workflow)" >> https://github.com/saltstack/salt/issues/12183 >> >> - links to GPG signing support in hg, git, os packaging systems >> >> ... >> >> Setting and checking SELinux file context labels: >> >> Someone else can explain how DEB handles semanage and chcon? >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/SELinux >> >> RPM supports .te (type enforcement), .fc (file context), and .if >> SELinux files with an `semodule` command. >> >> RPM requires various combinations of the policycoreutils, >> selinux-policy-targeted, selinux-policy-devel, and >> policycoreutils-python packages. >> >> Should setup.py (running with set fcontext (eg root)) just call chcon >> itself; or is it much better to repack (signed) Python packages as >> e.g. RPMs? >> >> FWIW, Salt and Ansible do support setting and checking SELinux file >> contexts: >> salt.modules.selinux: >> >> https://docs.saltstack.com/en/latest/ref/modules/all/salt.modules.selinux.html >> >> >> https://github.com/saltstack/salt/blob/develop/salt/modules/selinux.py >> >> Requires: >> - cmds: semanage, setsebool, semodule >> - pkgs: policycoreutils, policycoreutils-python, >> >> >> Ansible sefcontext: >> >> http://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/sefcontext_module.html >> >> https://github.com/ansible/ansible/blob/devel/lib/ansible/modules/system/sefcontext.py >> >> >> Requires: >> - pkgs: libselinux-python, policycoreutils-python >> >> Does it make sense to require e.g. policycoreutils-python[-python] in >> 'spython'? ((1) Instead of wrapping `ls -Z` and `chcon` (2) in >> setup.py (3) as root)? > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/steve.dower%40python.org
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4