OpenBSD Moving Towards Signed Packages — Based On D. J. Bernstein Crypto

ConstantineM writes "It's official: 'we are moving towards signed packages,' says Theo de Raadt on the misc@ mailing list. This is shortly after a new utility, signify, was committed into the base tree. The reason a new utility had to be written in the first place is that gnupg is too big to fit on the floppy discs, which are still a supported installation medium for OpenBSD. Signatures are based on the Ed25519 public-key signature system from D. J. Bernstein and co., and his public domain code once again appears in the base tree of OpenBSD, only a few weeks after some other DJB inventions made it into the nearby OpenSSH as well."

Comments

Very surprised that it took this long

[ModernGeek]

I'm surprised that this wasn't implemented a long time ago. Even Windows has had signed code for quiet some time.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just bothered that such a decision was made based off of the arbitrary capacity of a floppy diskette. The Floppy-based installer should compensate by having it fit across multiple disks and stored into RAM, or some other solution. What's next? Something won't run on a machine with less than 8MB of RAM, so it will be shoved off?

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenBSD is security by arrogance: nobody cares much to pay any attention to it, and anyone who comes with good intentions gets shouted down.

Distributing unsigned packages in 2014 shows such a lack of concern for even the most basic risks facing administrators and end users that I can only assume it was intentional.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[sumdumass]

Nah. the floppy discs work just fine. I remember getting them with cereal boxes in the mid to late 90s. You could do about anything other then fold them in half and they would still work for a while. After about 20 uses, you needed another though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chex_Quest

Here is an example. I think they were made of cardboard but some were made out of the plastic like what you would see on a floppy cutting board. Usually they were part of the box and you needed to cut them out in order to use them.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[fisted]

Wrong. Using binary package is just considered not the right way to do things, in OpenBSD land.
What you do is, check out the source repository, which does make sure the data you get hasn't been tampered with, then build it from source.
For mass deployments, you can then create binary packages from the result (secure distribution to other machines is your job, however. although that typically isn't much of a concern since it usually happens on the local network.

IOW, your comment is pure BS.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[cold fjord]

So, do you have a timeline for when other *BSD and Linux distributions switched to signed packages? It looks to me that FreeBSD only started that move at the end of October, and doesn't appear to be there yet. I don't think I would call that a "crushing" lead.

There wouldn't happen to be some trolling going on with your post, is there? Especially the "security by arrogance" bit?

Thu Oct 31 02:10:33 UTC 2013

Pkg 1.2 will be released in the coming month which will bring many
improvements including officially signed packages. FreeBSD 10's pkg
bootstrap now also supports signed pkg(8) installation.
 

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Anonymous Coward]

"Disc" is how English speakers outside the US spell the word describing a round, flat object. The reason one item is referred to as a "floppy disk" and one as a "compact disc" is simply their origin. The Compact Disc was developed by a Philips/Sony team, companies located in the Netherlands and Japan respectively. The floppy disk was developed by US based IBM.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Sean]

And how exactly do you get the OS and compilers to build the source code with?

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Anonymous Coward]

Majority of Linux installations use RPM or APT, and those had GPG signing since ~2005.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[hairyfeet]

Well considering the fact that OpenBSD is in danger of shutting down due to lack of funding I really don't think starting this NOW is the greatest of ideas. Click on the comments to the article I linked to and they have a letter from de Raadt berating some for daring! to suggest that they might not ought to support a shitload of ancient formats like VAX if they are losing THAT much cash so I'd be amazed if they are here next year.

I'm sure I'll get hate from the *BSD fans but truth is truth and when you are bleeding cash like that you can NOT just give everyone a bad attitude and a "we deserve this", not when you are counting on those same people to support you. Either de Raadt stops running that huge mound of servers or they bleed to death, simple as that. And from the looks of that letter he'd be perfectly happy with it being the latter if it means giving an inch otherwise. Sorry guys but I've dealt with "never give an inch" types in business and in my exp they usually end up bankrupt. The wise owner rolls with the punches and accepts there is gonna be downturns, the arrogant owner says "I deserve it all" and runs the company into the ground.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[dbIII]

If they go under that just means no conference and having to beg server space from someone. Volunteer groups go over the edge all the time and comparing them to a business is pointless since the aims are very different.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[fisted]

Those "probably" (read: as is the case for any other OS) come with the installation media, which is an entirely different matter.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[citizenr]

It doesnt have to be secure, nobody uses openbsd outright.
It exists solely for the purpose of begging for donations while at the same time letting big corporations take its code and include in their products without giving back.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[stderr_dk]

I fail to see why a BIOS would use the kernel of a general-purpose operating system.

Nevertheless that is what coreboot does. It used to be known as LinuxBIOS.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[allo]

disc = cd/dvd/...
disk = hard disk, floppy disk, ... (disc in a box, if you want so)

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Knuckx]

Coreboot doesn't use linux at all. Coreboot just initalises hardware, then loads a payload from ROM. That payload can be a Legacy BIOS service provider (SeaBIOS), an EFI environment (TianoCore), a bootloader (U-Boot, GRUB2), a Linux kernel, or pretty much any x86 code that does not require any BIOS/EFI services present.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[aliquis]

Installation media which you can generate a md5 hash for or whatever.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[aliquis]

But they likely want to keep it being just ONE floppy.

Not bloat it like NetBSD which require TWO floppies.

(FreeBSD seem to be even worse! ..)

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[aliquis]

disc = English
disk = Svenska

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I think you missed the "used to be" part of his comment. As in, what you're talking about is "now", and what he was talking about was "back then".

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Clsid]

I don't know, surely de Raadt has a reputation, but those guys have done a great thing in general. Having that attitude is what helps getting stuff done most of the time instead of happy hand holding, we are all good friends kind of attitude. Not signing packages and not wanting to use gnupg is kind of absurd, but I have seen weirdest attitudes in the free software world, like sticking with Vi instead of quick edit and easier tools like nano, or this whole thing about gnu info vs man pages.

I have been using Debian for my servers, but I'm seriously considering switching to OpenBSD mostly because it provides a barebones installation that is mostly secured by default. That and stability is what I value the most for servers and these guys deliver big time.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Knuckx]

I can very clearly see and read his comment: it said "Nevertheless that is what coreboot does.", and that is what I responded to. The "used to be" part of his comment is quite clearly refering to the name change, and not to a change of scope. In fact, if you had read what you linked to, you would realise that coreboot/LinuxBIOS has never used the linux kernel for anything past a payload (linux was the orignal payload, as the old name suggested) - it is not (and never has been) involved in the hardware initialisation at all.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[PopeRatzo]

I thought "disc" was how people from Montreal spelled "disk".

Live and learn.

Or maybe I'm thinking of "disque"

Either way, floppy disks? Really?

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Kjella]

Theo is the same that he's been for the last 20 years, on the one hand he's militant about the BSD license which gives away all the code to multi-billion corporations then a giant crybaby when the same corporations take the code and give him nothing but a cold shoulder in return. Oddly enough he's managed to gather a small following which barely keeps OpenBSD alive, usually by threatening to shut down OpenSSH development which is their only true success but this is neither the first nor the last time he's making such ultimatums.

If Linus is the benevolent dictator for life, Theo is the not-so-benevolent dictator for life. He started OpenBSD so he could run the show and any oppositition is harshly cut down. Don't argue with him about how the project's managed, what costs are necessary, everything is as Theo has decided it should be and he's only complaining that nobody is willing to fund his masterpiece. Your input is not wanted, just your wallet and he treats everyone from the smallest individual contributor to giant corporations the same. He's got balls of steel and an ego the size of a planet, but in the end he'll always be going around with a beggar's cup.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Bengie]

I'm surprised that this wasn't implemented a long time ago. Even Windows has had signed code for quiet some time.

Having code signed by a central CA seems to be again what OpenBSD and FreeBSD are trying to do. They don't want to play god and gate keeper. They held off as long as they could to see if a new distributed public key system could have came out. Unfortunately, a new public key system has not come out and the security benefit is too grate, even if against their ideology.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Bengie]

"Good intentions" may be enough for Linux, but OpenBSD likes to have reasoning behind the ideas. Actually, OpenBSD's target isn't even that of being used, which is why it doesn't support proper multi-threading. Their entire focus is making is secure and doing it correctly the first time. It's a platform that aims more for theoretically correct designs, but it just so happens to be quite decent in many practical applications, like firewalls.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[chriscappuccio]

Yeah, because using a large and unwieldy package would have made it so much more useful, trustworthy, right?

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[chriscappuccio]

If you get packages from an official FTP/HTTP site or CD, then chances are, your biggest adversary is 1. someone who can perform DNS poisoning or 2. the NSA. Guess which one helped spur this into action, at least in some small way?

FreeBSD 10 is the first to offer signed packages, and it is just coming out now. OpenBSD 5.5 isn't that far away.

https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pkg/2013-October/000107.html

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[chriscappuccio]

You're wrong. Using binary packages IS the recommended way to go in OpenBSD land.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[chriscappuccio]

Please explain how floppy support is degrading security. I'd like to see this one.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[chriscappuccio]

Nobody uses OpenBSD outright? Wow. I could have swore that over 80 computers in my immediate vicinity at home and work run..hmm..What is that called? OpenBSD?? Yeah, I think that's what they run.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[abirdman]

My "official" copy of WordPerfect was the last (group) of floppy disks I owned (along with a licensed copy of MASM). But do you have the function key template, without which WP is practically useless?

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[TheRaven64]

What you do is, check out the source repository, which does make sure the data you get hasn't been tampered with, then build it from source.

Actually, it doesn't. OpenBSD is still using CVS for revision control. After the FreeBSD cluster compromise a couple of years ago, we found that the CVS repository was the one thing whose integrity we could not verify. The current FreeBSD CVS repository was created by exporting from subversion (which could be verified) and validating it against git (which also can be verified).

Oh, and OpenBSD does recommend getting the binary packages over using ports (but they don't release security fixes for binary packages, and don't support using a ports tree revision that doesn't match your base system revision), and they recommend getting binary packages with unencrypted, unauthenticated, FTP.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[TheRaven64]

FreeBSD systems traditionally built their own packages from the ports tree. The shipped packages are really just the ones that go on the install media, which are typically out of date by the time you get around to installing it. With the new pkg(7) infrastructure, we are properly supporting binary packages and part of the requirement for this was that we'd sign them and distribute the keys out of band. The signing keys are currently distributed using freebsd-update, which was designed to do binary updates of the base system and does use signed deltas. These are then used by the pkg tool to verify packages.

Prior to this, we were distributing the ports tree using the portsnap utility, which also does cryptographic verification of the downloads using the same mechanism as freebsd-update.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[chriscappuccio]

Or Windows 8.1 which requires, well, a LOT of floppies.

http://blog.dk.sg/2013/10/25/upgrading-to-windows-8-1-using-3-5-floppy-disks/

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[chriscappuccio]

You do have to download the source...

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[chriscappuccio]

I suspect you'll be very happy with the pre-release for OpenBSD 5.5. For amd64,

ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/amd64/

and signed packages:

ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSd/snapshots/packages/amd64/

It's also quite nice on the desktop, with Intel and Radeon KMS from the Linux 3.8 series.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[unixisc]

Actually, for the comments, one has to go pretty deep, so here it is

Yeah, I too think that OS won't be around too long, so it will be down to FreeBSD and NetBSD. On the Linux side of things, even distros like Debian have discontinued support for things like HP PA-RISC, which is less ancient than VAX. FreeBSD has dropped support for DEC Alpha. That's what not just companies, but even volunteer organizations do when a platform is no longer in circulation. Yet that rack had a number of ancient boxes like VAX, PowerMacs, SPARCstation 20 (i.e. SPARC32), and more. Things that don't get built anymore.

He could cross-compile for older platforms on Xeons, while still keep currently selling boxes, such as HP Integrity servers, Sun SPARC and IBM POWERservers. He'd get his diverse architectures, and he'd save his electric bills. But since OpenBSD has a policy against cross-compiling, looks like they'll just have to go down.

Can nobody else fork OpenSSH, if he's threatening to end that if he isn't funded?

Re: Very surprised that it took this long

[sabri]

3 kilometres of air

I'm sorry, that is not something that the average American will understand. Next time, write "3.2 Kilometers of air" and we can translate it with "2 Statute Miles of air" :)

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[ConstantineM]

Using binary package is just considered not the right way to do things, in OpenBSD land.

Entirely false. Binary packages, installed with pkg_add from a nearby mirror, has been the recommended way to install ports for as long as I remember (I've been a user for some 10 years, and a developer, too). I've never heard of anyone compiling packages directly from ports in OpenBSD. Not even the developers, unless they're port developers, that is.

Even for the kernel itself, it is highly recommended for non-developers to only run the binary snapshots.

Unless one is tracking the stable branch, which has no official binary builds, then compiling from source tree is only ever advised for the developers.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[fisted]

Admittedly I was only inferring from NetBSD.
Reading the OpenBSD FAQ, it in fact seems to recommend using binary packages, unsigned, transmitted over an insecure channel, which, frankly is retarded and should be fixed, unless signify is really really near.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[fisted]

What the heck? What you say makes sense, but it's wrong.

Looking closer, the FAQ is wrong here.

A "package" is defined as a binary executable, and a "port" is defined as the source (using OpenBSD's terminology).

Yes. This is about who builds the package, though. It's a bit vague terminology, but for my purposes, 'using a port' means building it yourself and installing the resulting package, while 'using a binary package' means fetching the prebuilt package from somewhere else.
With this out of the way..

And, I quote, http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgVsPorts

"In general, you are highly advised to use packages over building an application from ports.

Well frankly I have no idea why there's such utter BS in the FAQ.
It essentially tells us we're ``highly advised'' to fetch unsigned tarballs over plaintext ftp, when the alternative way is the admittedly antiquitated but at least secure cvs-over-ssh checkout.
Every security-minded person with half a brain can figure.

Maybe using a binary package isn't the actually right/secure way, but it definitely is "considered" to be "the right away to do things", exactly in contrast to your statement.

Your argument is essentually argument-by-authority, although I admit I usually trust official FAQs, too. This seems really odd.

On the upside, when signify is done, they at least don't need to update the FAQ, since then using binary packages will be equivalently secure.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[fisted]

And the CVS transport used in OpenBSD is.....? *drumroll*

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[fisted]

And why would you do that? Going that way you're easily MITM'ed.

Can you give some better reason than 'everyone does it'?

Why exactly would you prefer an insecure transmission channel over a reasonably secure one, for the software you install? How does that even remotely fit the OpenBSD mindset?

Even for the kernel itself, it is highly recommended for non-developers to only run the binary snapshots.

This sounds just as stupid, and I'm tempted to believe it's only recommended to raise the signal-to-noise in crash reports. Crash dumps from custom kernels are harder to analyze for other developers than if the generic one was used.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[ConstantineM]

And why would you do that? Going that way you're easily MITM'ed.

Can you give some better reason than 'everyone does it'?

Why exactly would you prefer an insecure transmission channel over a reasonably secure one, for the software you install? How does that even remotely fit the OpenBSD mindset?

Maybe it doesn't, but that's not a good reason to claim of a widespread practice, "in OpenBSD land", that's completely foreign to anyone actually familiar with OpenBSD.

I repeat: I don't know of anyone who compiles software from ports all the time (besides, that's not that much more secure, since the ports tree itself isn't signed, either). A `pkg_add` from a nearby mirror is what gets things done for the vast majority of people. Many mirrors are run by developers; personally, I wouldn't use any mirror that wasn't; and yes, especially in light of the recent revelations, this does leave some room for a Government-in-the-Middle attack, which is probably exactly the reason of why this won't be as it was anymore.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[chriscappuccio]

It's already part of the -current snapshots. It will be a feature in 5.5 for base, packages and firmware.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[ConstantineM]

http://openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#Ports

"Everyone is encouraged to use the pre-compiled binary packages."

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[fisted]

(besides, that's not that much more secure, since the ports tree itself isn't signed, either).

Checking out the ports tree via cvs+ssh means i can be reasonably sure that i get in fact the right thing, including distfile hashes.
So yeah, it is much more secure.

As for the ``but it's so hard to compile ports'' argument, i have to admit i was only infering from what I'm used to from Net- and FreeBSD.

So, what exactly is the big deal with compiling ports on OpenBSD? Now i'm honestly curious.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[fisted]

Yes, I get it, you're a big fan of argument-by-authority.
Try something new for a change: Think for yourself *gasp*, and explain why exactly the FAQ encourages this, and the security implications of it.

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[thomas8166]

Wrong. The OpenBSD FAQ expressly recommends packages over ports.
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgVsPorts

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[fisted]

you're the 3rd or 4th one to point this out. i have replied to this somewhere else in the discussion

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[Cyclops]

Majority of Linux installations use RPM or APT, and those had GPG signing since ~2005.

Actually, Red Hat's RPM usage included gpg signing of each of the packages individually since before 2000 :)

Re:Very surprised that it took this long

[BasharTeg]

You think that's bad, try Kings Quest 5, the last version offered on floppy disk. Shit's ridiculous, and then one of the floppies goes bad.

Re: Very surprised that it took this long

[Cid Highwind]

That's backwards.

"Disc" is a non-trademarkable dictionary word for any round, flat object.
"Disk" is a shortened form of "Diskette", which was an IBM trademark for 8" floppy disks (and later their 5.25" and 3.5" descendants).

Re: Very surprised that it took this long

[MareLooke]

I'll just leave this here.

First thought upon seeing the headline:

[macraig]

What does openBSD have to do with tattooing your Johnson?

Re:First thought upon seeing the headline:

[cold fjord]

They don't have much of a budget for advertising.

Re:First thought upon seeing the headline:

[Megahard]

That's why it has to fit on a floppy.

Floppy disks?

[thue]

Being limited by floppy disk support requirement sounds like a bad joke. Is that really relevant for any computer which is not hopelessly antiquated in 2014? For reference, Apple stopped shipping floppy disk drives by default in 1998.

Re:Floppy disks?

[Anonymous Coward]

And when you want to use a hopelessly antiquated computer for something, OpenBSD will be there for you.

Re:Floppy disks?

[Daniel_Staal]

Well, I haven't followed the discussion, but I do know that one of OpenBSD's major markets is basically semi-embedded systems: Firewalls and routers. It's likely they won't have much in the way of external storage attachment, or much in the way of internal storage at all. Given that, it might make sense. I don't know.

Re:Floppy disks?

[gwolf]

No, it won't make much sense even with that in mind. Even less, in fact.

Embedded systems are usually factory-installed. In the factory, they don't do the installs via floppies. Most OpenBSD installs today are done off their (very good!) CD-ROM media, or maybe even more, by USB.

Floppy disks are used for a tiny percentage of installs (yes, even of *their* installs). Alright, they don't want to dump very old architectures that are known to work and have no other acceptable bood medium, but in the end... Basing the entire OS in the least common denominator takes a toll on the general usability of the system in everyday settings.

Re:Floppy disks?

[Daniel_Staal]

I said semi-embedded for a reason: I'm more thinking of hobiest/custom firewalls and routers. The ones from the factory tend to run a version of Linux or PFSense - But you can get similar devices from manufacturers without an OS that you can install your own OS onto.

Not that I'm sure I disagree with you. Just trying to think of a rational reason and give them the benefit of the doubt. However hard that is.

Re:Floppy disks?

[TarPitt]

As far as OpenBSD is concerned, "the general usability of the system in everyday settings" is the bottom priority.

No, in fact the lack of general usability is a goal OpenBSD strives for.

Be grateful they aren't still using punched paper tape for installs.

Re:Floppy disks?

[dbIII]

Being limited by floppy disk support requirement sounds like a bad joke

Why are you making it then? Out of the dozen machines I've put *bsd on there is only one that had a floppy disk drive. I installed via USB on that one just like all the others.

Re:Floppy disks?

[jawtheshark]

I gather that more serious OpenBSD admins simply boot from network and be done with it. (Google PXE, if you haven't got a clue what I'm talking about) I haven't used a USB or CD-Rom for ages to install mainstream Linuxes or OpenBSD.

Re:Floppy disks?

[Tom]

In a recent interview I can't find right now, Theo gave a perfectly good reason for this insane legacy support: OpenBSD is a volunteer project, and some of the most valuable contributors want this stuff to remain. Dumping the legacy systems would most likely mean losing those contributors. If they are important enough to the project, then the legacy support is the price it pays to keep them around.

Re:Floppy disks?

[chriscappuccio]

It's about discipline more than supporting old hardware. Maybe you've heard of it?

Re:Floppy disks?

[chriscappuccio]

The "general usability of the system" is actually one of the top priorities. Sane defaults, few knobs, easy installer. Of course, if "usable" means "GUI that my grandmother could use" then maybe it doesn't fit your definition. But, "usable" for anyone who has any CLI experience whatsoever means that OpenBSD is going to be quicker to install, and easier to get up and running for a particular purpose than almost any other system available.

Re:Floppy disks?

[TheRaven64]

None of these devices have floppy disks though. Compact Flash cards are a more common requirement, as they're basically IDE devices. I had one a few years ago with a custom firewall distribution that fitted onto a 32MB CF card, but a year later it was hard to buy a CF card smaller than 4GB and so I switched to a full OS install.

Re:Floppy disks?

[McDutchie]

Another good reason I found on a relevant mailing list thread is that testing on a large variety of architectures often exposes bugs that remain under the radar otherwise (but may still come to bite users as security holes). That large variety is only available by supporting legacy architectures.

Re:Floppy disks?

[Zero__Kelvin]

And if it wasn't hopelessly antiquated already, just install OpenBSD and, like magic ... POOF ... it is antiquated!

1991 called...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Nah, too easy.

Re:1991 called...

[ChunderDownunder]

1987 called to say the Archimedes will spank any 386SX.

RISC OS is a footnote but ARM is in great shape.

djb switching?

[ConstantineM]

I cannot find a back reference right now, but didn't DJB switch away from FreeBSD to Ubuntu precisely because of the signed packages?

it won't fit?

[X0563511]

I call bullshit:
Copied right from /usr/bin:
"-rwxr-xr-x. 1 person staff 744K Nov 11 2010 gpg"

Packed with upx --best: (note this runtime unpacks, there is no loader library etc)
"-rwxr-xr-x. 1 person staff 327K Jan 19 05:40 gpg"

I should note this is a static binary.

Re:it won't fit?

[ConstantineM]

On i386, OpenBSD 5.4 can be installed from either one of the 3 floppies:

%ftp ftp://ftp.nluug.nl/pub/OpenBSD/5.4/i386/
...
ftp> ls floppy*
150 Here comes the directory listing.
-rw-r--r-- 1 500 450 1474560 Jul 30 18:27 floppy54.fs
-rw-r--r-- 1 500 450 1474560 Jul 30 18:27 floppyB54.fs
-rw-r--r-- 1 500 450 1474560 Jul 30 18:27 floppyC54.fs
226 Directory send OK.

Which one do you use? You'd have to see which one supports your hardware, which is documented in the INSTALL.i386 file, generated from src/distrib/notes/i386/hardware, amongst other files:

Drivers for hardware marked with [A] are NOT included in floppy A.
Drivers for hardware marked with [B] are NOT included in floppy B.
Drivers for hardware marked with [C] are NOT included in floppy C.

In summary, it would seem like OpenBSD is only intended to be boot-strapped from a floppy (e.g. to fetch the rest of the files from the network), and from a single floppy at that. So, even with the licence aside, including something like gnupg is indeed unrealistic and cumbersome.

Re:it won't fit?

[Too Much Noise]

Even giving it the benefit of the doubt, what would break the process so horribly if a separately packed floppy disk installer does not check signatures (link gpgv to /bin/true for instance) while the other installers do? Floppy users don't lose or gain anything while the rest get the benefit of an untampered source assurance. Or are they also trying to argue that adding signatures won't let the regular installation packages fit on floppy disks?

Re:it won't fit?

[Too Much Noise]

So by your own admission it's now 'security that *ahem* silently Just Fails to Work on *all* installation media'? Awesome. Having it work on all - 1 (actually all - see below, but what's 1 between internet strangers) will definitely be a huge step back.

Besides, nobody said anything about 'silently failing' - you can put a big red warning sign about it on the download page. Also, you should still check the image signature for that itty bitty tiny floppy install to validate its integrity (as one would do with any install medium), and package sigs can be checked outside the installation procedure anyway. So I'm kind of mystified as to what point you were trying to make.

Overly paranoid

[johnwbyrd]

I started using OpenBSD in 1998. It was a viable, timely competitor to Linux at the time, especially for building firewalls as such.

OpenBSD is a great example of what happens when you make life too difficult for end users and administrators in the name of Security. OpenBSD has never embraced the most recent release of anything -- if it's new, by definition it's insecure and it can't be trusted. Ergo, if you have to demonstrate the latest technology in whatever you're doing, you start with a Linux distribution.

From the article: "We wanted a tool that would fit on installation media, which meant minimizing code size and external dependencies." That's the breakage mode, in a nutshell. NO ONE in the world has been clamoring for an OpenBSD signing tool that runs on a floppy. But the designers are imagining the user requirements based on their own biases. This way lies the death of any commercial or open source software product.

Re:Overly paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet OpenBSD is still with us, so they must be doing something right.

Re:Overly paranoid

[johnwbyrd]

Yes, and people are developing games for the Sega Dreamcast as well. Existence is not the same as professional viability.

Re:Overly paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

OpenBSD has never embraced the most recent release of anything -- if it's new, by definition it's insecure and it can't be trusted.

Which is why I choose OpenBSD. One can choose Linux for this as well, but then you have to start maintaining a set of SELinux rules. If you think that the default SELinux rules are even remotely acceptable, I urge you to stay away from secure systems.

Ergo, if you have to demonstrate the latest technology in whatever you're doing, you start with a Linux distribution.

Building a secure system is not about testing out the latest and coolest technology. It's about being certain that the system is secure. The latest technology is filled with bugs, and enough bugs are later found to be exploitable for that idea to be obviously bad.

NO ONE in the world has been clamoring for an OpenBSD signing tool that runs on a floppy. But the designers are imagining the user requirements based on their own biases.

I am certain that there are OpenBSD users that use floppies to install. Those are most likely among the more careful users, which means that they also would like signed packages. It seems that the OpenBSD developers knows more about their user base than you.

This way lies the death of any commercial or open source software product.

They stick by their conviction that security is relevant and that it can't be patched on in the end. Security is expensive and virtually nobody cares about it, so I agree that they are in the danger zone. That is why de Raadt has urged people to donate.

Re:Overly paranoid

[ls671]

How can it be possible to be "overly paranoid" when it comes to machines hooked up to the Internet?

Re:Overly paranoid

[johnwbyrd]

Okay, so what are you going to do about that paranoia? Use OpenBSD? That's too bad, because the NSA has already inserted cryptospy code into the distribution without Theo's knowledge. Oh, so you'll just compile it yourself from the sources, and read and review them all yourself? Too bad because your compiler has code in it that secretly inserts itself when it detects compilation of the OpenBSD kernel. Oh, but you're going to review all the compiler source code yourself and do a Canadian cross to build a clean compiler which you will then use to build a clean OpenBSD kernel from source? Too bad, because Bernstein has been paid gold in a secret numbered bank account in Thailand to insert a bug that will only manifest when it checks the installation of a new kernel on your machine.

Eventually, you have to put your tinfoil hat away and figure out how to get some work done on that there computer. Paranoia has a useful limit.

Re:Overly paranoid

[johnwbyrd]

When you can't run the software that your job requires on them.

Re:Overly paranoid

[johnwbyrd]

Bingo! And the fact that you couldn't perceive that is entirely hilarious.

Re:Overly paranoid

[ls671]

You put that "software" on less secure machines behind reverse-proxies, WAP, traffic analysis software, firewalls etc. which run on OSes designed by overly paranoid people.

Re:Overly paranoid

[mdenham]

It's about being certain that the system is secure.

To ensure system security, install this software on the system.

Then unplug all cables from it that would allow usage of the system by anyone ever, because you cannot ensure the system is secure while users still have access to it.

Re:Overly paranoid

[flyingfsck]

You are not paranoid if they really are out to get you and a large part of the OpenBSD userbase is Government/Military, so that is why.

Re:Overly paranoid

[flyingfsck]

Military IT security motto is: We are not happy until you are not happy.

Re:Overly paranoid

[Burz]

Most updates are for security fixes.

OTOH, security by correctness all by itself never prevented resourceful attackers from compiling their own databases of zero-day exploits. Infrequent updates just means the list is somewhat larger. I can't agree with this concept of security.

I've been using Qubes OS to enhance security and though it incorporates Linux it uses a clever Xen configuration instead of SELinux to harden the system. No rules to maintain, just straightforward domains. The upshot is I can even run Windows in seamless mode and still expose my core system to less risk than an OpenBSD system running native apps.

Re:Overly paranoid

[Burz]

Run whatever software you need on Qubes. Even then your system is likely to be more secure than OpenBSD.

Re:Overly paranoid

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you still make the assumption that Qubes is less buggy and that its developers have thought through the security more carefully than the OpenBSD-team. As de Raadt said:

x86 virtualization is about basically placing another nearly full kernel, full of new bugs, on top of a nasty x86 architecture which barely has correct page protection. Then running your operating system on the other side of this brand new pile of shit. You are absolutely deluded, if not stupid, if you think that a worldwide collection of software engineers who can't write operating systems or applications without security holes, can then turn around and suddenly write virtualization layers without security holes.

Joanna and her team seem talented, but the software is new and untested.

Re:Overly paranoid

[Burz]

Its a philosophical difference: Qubes' approach leans toward security by isolation where the attack surface is greatly reduced. That reduction is enforced by silicon and a baremetal hypervisor. So where correctness is concerned, Qubes needs much less of it to enforce security.

OTOH, OpenBSD is probably not as good at security by correctness as Qubes is at isolation. And if there were ever a need to elevate the standard for correctness to, say, mathematical proofs, a Qubes architecture would take a fraction of the time and effort.

Traditional OS kernels are good at providing useful features, but are no longer the standard-bearers for security. And its good to see Theo recognizes them as buggy (if not for providing features).

 

Joanna and her team seem talented, but the software is new and untested.

If anyone can test and identify the kinds of hardware pitfalls Theo is complaining about, I'm sure Joanna's team (ITL) would be among them. That's what they've done for years (Joanna's blog frequently picks at x86 implementation issues), and now they have an effort to work around those problems. I don't think there is a drop of naivete in them about what PC hardware can do (or how far current designs can be trusted).

Xen itself is well tested, and that is the basis for Qubes security. The parts of Qubes that are untested are very small, indeed, and that status will change before long.

Re:Overly paranoid

[chriscappuccio]

You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

You are wrong on all counts, from making life "too difficult for end users" (OpenBSD is one of the easiest systems to setup routing/firewalling on) to "never embraced the most recent release of anything" (the ports tree is much quicker than most Linux distros) to the idea that OpenBSD's signing tool was designed to be small solely to fit on a floppy. That's not true. It's designed to be small because THERE'S NO REASON FOR IT TO BE LARGE AND HARD TO UNDERSTAND. That's a recipe for disaster.

Re:Overly paranoid

[chriscappuccio]

Amen brother.

Re:Overly paranoid

[101percent]

This is utter bullshit. Do you know how easy it is to connect to a WPA2 network with # ifconfig ? Do you know how easy it is to activate a proven secure httpd, named and other unix services including deployments such as access points and firewalls. Do you really believe iptables is easier than pf? Do you really think selinux is easy? Do you jump on every bandwagon like everyone else and now have all your tweets stored on the library of congress and all your information in the hands of facebook mark "they trust me, dumbfucks" zuckerberg? As Theo says, if you want something new and shiny off the shelf, go get it, but don't come crying later from this mentality of not knowing when to say, "wait maybe this isn't the best idea." What is so "new" that OpenBSD desperately needs? And why do you think they owe it to you? Since when has embracing the most recent release made your life easier or more secure? Would you believe a recent OpenSSH makes you more secure, because OpenBSD is the first to have it, always. Would a new pf make you more secure, because OpenBSD has it, always. What about ipsec, which OpenBSD was first to implement? I can't believe you were upvoted to 5.

Floppy discs and the programmers who use them!

[danpbrowning]

Many members are up in arms over the large new utility: "Programmers these days with their fancy new computers and their gigantic 'five and a quarter' new-age magnetic spinning discs are constantly looking down on us 'old-fashioned' punch-card programmers. Why can't they write a new utility that supports six rows of 8-bit EBCDIC? Laziness. This just proves that OpenBSD don't care about small, home-built systems. Sixty four bytes is big enough for anybody."

Re:Floppy discs and the programmers who use them!

[cold fjord]

You know they aren't really writing large programs since they haven't been forced to use 8" floppies.

Re:Floppy discs and the programmers who use them!

[flyingfsck]

OK, you jest, but I am not: Military/Government is a large part of the OpenBSD userbase. They still use a large number of antiquated and extremely, unbelievably expensive equipment. So it makes sense after all.

Re:Floppy discs and the programmers who use them!

[aliquis]

OK, you jest, but I am not: Military/Government is a large part of the OpenBSD userbase. They still use a large number of antiquated and extremely, unbelievably expensive equipment. So it makes sense after all.

Yeah! Two of their users are within the military!

Re:Floppy discs and the programmers who use them!

[coolsnowmen]

Let's pretend your are right about the Millitary/Government having antiquated expensive equipment using OpenBSD that only has a floppy drive.

Why do they they need to install the newest version on it?

You're wrong.

[fisted]

$ ls -lh `which gpg`
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 892K Jan 19 06:09 /usr/pkg/bin/gpg
$ file !$
file `which gpg`
/usr/pkg/bin/gpg: ELF 64-bit LSB executable, x86-64, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for NetBSD 6.1.2, stripped
$ ldd !$
ldd `which gpg`
/usr/pkg/bin/gpg:
-lintl.1 => /usr/lib/libintl.so.1
-lgcc_s.1 => /usr/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
-lc.12 => /usr/lib/libc.so.12
-lz.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1
-lbz2.1 => /usr/lib/libbz2.so.1
$ uname -rsm
NetBSD 6.1.2 amd64

So your statically linked gpg binary is smaller than my dynamically linked gpg binary on the closely related NetBSD.
That does not seem legit, please run the commands I ran, on the not-upx'ed binary and post the results.

Re:You're wrong.

[broken_chaos]

Also important is: which version are you looking at? The 1.4 series (still updated) is intended for smaller/embedded installs, while the 2.x series is intended for mainstream (especially desktop) usage

Re:You're wrong.

[fisted]

$ gpg --version
gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.15

(good call, broken_chaos)

Re:You're wrong.

[stderr_dk]

Also important is: which version are you looking at? The 1.4 series (still updated) is intended for smaller/embedded installs, while the 2.x series is intended for mainstream (especially desktop) usage

It's also important to ask why they are even looking at the main gpg executable and not gpgv?

gpgv is a stripped-down version of gnupg which is only able to check signatures. It is smaller than the full-blown gnupg and uses a different (and simpler) way to check that the public keys used to make the signature are trustworthy.

Re:You're wrong.

[fisted]

good call, I wasn't aware of gogv. It's 340K, but uses the same shared libs

Re:You're wrong.

[fisted]

eh, gpgv

Dupe?

[Nemyst]

I know dupes are a long time Slashdot tradition, so I'm asking: is this a dupe from 1995 or something? Because it sure feels like it.

Re:Dupe?

[abhi_beckert]

It's not a dupe, it's just that everyone installs from source on OpenBSD, so signing the binary never made much sense.

Re:Dupe?

[Burz]

It's not a dupe, it's just that everyone installs from source on OpenBSD, so signing the binary never made much sense.

Yeah, because its realistic for people to be their own code auditors for a whole OS, and for each install and update.

I'm sorry, but this makes OpenBSD users sound like morons. IMO, they shouldn't try to justify the myopia that has lead to this situation.

Re:Dupe?

[thogard]

If I compile from source, I can ensure that the binary I have is unlike any other in the world. That has protected my machines in the past so I will keep doing it.

Re:Dupe?

[chriscappuccio]

You're thinking about FreeBSD.

Re:Dupe?

[petrus4]

Yeah, because its realistic for people to be their own code auditors for a whole OS, and for each install and update. It is entirely realistic if you know what you are doing. My default FreeBSD install fits into 65 Mb of RAM. As I have observed before on this site many times; narrow mindedness and aggression have a marked tendency to go together. The more ignorant a person is, the more adamant they usually are about expressing it. Not all of us live according to argumentum ad novitatem.

Re:PPC? I think not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Itanium was the platform where EFI was introduced in order to replace 16bit BIOSes. EFI later became UEFI, which virtually all desktop computers ship with. You were saying?

Re:One thing OpenBSD is not is a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Floppies are almost exclusively dead. Tape is the only realistic backup media for large-scale, long-term, enterprise archival. It may not be fast, but it's relatively sane to work with and lasts for a long time if you've got an appropriate storage facility. Backups back to 7 years, minimum, etc.. The sort of thing you expect out of a law firm or International MegaCorp Inc.. Still big in the mainframe world.

Re:Theo Theo Theo

[Anonymous Coward]

I read a story about Theo having a hard time keeping all the servers running and hoped a company would pick up the tab --for no compensation.

No compensation besides a pretty rock solid server OS they can modify and use as they see fit you mean?

Those ATM companies could simply pick up OpenBSD for free and make it work. That would put 0 money in Theo's pockets. (and slow+secure is a hell of a lot more useful than fast+insecure when you are directly attached to the internet)

It seems to me you do not really know what you are talking about and just repeating some rumors you have picked up at random uninformed or biased blogs.

Debian has had it for a while

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not as familiary with RedHat or SuSe archives, but I did a little digging over at debian.org.

The debian-archive-keyring package changelog shows an initial release on 10 January 2006, or eight years ago.

Digging deeper, the devscripts changelog shows the signchanges program (now called debsign) was added in July 1999. The changelog entry implies that it was to aid an already existing signing system, so Debian has had it for about 15 years, possibly longer.

Now consider that Debian has a reputation as a late adopter.

Re:Debian has had it for a while

[aliquis]

I think they have been using hashes on source/distribution files in ports (I don't know the pkg stuff work, I don't run it nowadays) and you can use CVS to get the ports system (or OS source) and use SSH for hooking up to the CVS server and show the SSH key fingerprint through CVS.

It doesn't just fetch anything from RapidShare and executes it.

Re:Debian has had it for a while

[petermgreen]

Debian don't sign the binary packages directly (they do sign source packages but that is more as a conviniance to users who get a source package from somewhere other than the repo). Both the upload and download sides of things are now protected by GPG signatures but the two systems are seperate and one is much newer than the other

The "upload" (developer--->repo) side of things is secured by a signature on the "changes" file which describes the upload. The changes file in turn contains secure hashes* of the files that are being uploaded. It has been this way for as long as I can remember**.

the "download" (repo--->user) side of things is secured by signatures on the "Release" files. The release files contain secure hashes of the "Packages" files which in turn contain secure Hashes of the files in the repo. This system was introduced with debian etch (released in 2007 though testing users would have had the functionlity earlier).

* At least md5, usually also sha1 and sha256. AIUI if multiple hashes are present they are all required to match.

Re:bsd is dead

[ChunderDownunder]

Soon enough if they don't get donations totalling $20,000 to pay their power bill.

http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/14/01/15/1719244/openbsd-looking-at-funding-shortfall-in-2014

Posting by arrogance?

[dbIII]

Seems the above poster knows almost nothing about openbsd, has formed an ignorant opinion and is arrogantly using that to accuse people of arrogance.
A lot of people use ports instead of packages. Packages are seen as the convenient alternative that is the inflexible and insecure way to install things.

Probably for bootable CDs

[Animats]

This is probably because they want the signature checker to fit in the CD boot loader. For historical reasons, bootable CDs imitate a floppy during the initial boot process, and contain an image of a 1.44MB floppy with a FAT file system. When you boot an PC-type x86 machine from CD, that simulated floppy (the file "floppy54.fs" for OpenBSD) is read by the BIOS and a file from it is executed.

This process is so retro that the initial program loaded is executed in 16-bit X86 mode.

Re: Probably for bootable CDs

[buchanmilne]

But, if you are booting from CDs, and the CD has the rest of the media, why do you need the utility for verifying signatures on the boot media (1.44MB image)? Bootstrap the installation image from the iso9660 part of the CD (or network in the case if a network install)? and have that contain the signature verification utility.

Hint: RPM-baswd distro have been doing this since rpm 3.x, or about 1999.

Really, who uses floppies for installation these days? Sure, maybe floppy emulation on a DRAC or iLO or ILOM, but they all
-support CDROM or DVD emulation
-PXE boot (with relatively large images possible via TFTP)

If none of these are options, just write the whole (hybrid) ISO image to a 4GB USB flash disk and be done with it.

I personally haven't used an actual CD-RW or DVD to install a syatem in about 5 years. Either network install booted via PXE for servers, or USB flash disk for laptops.

Re:Probably for bootable CDs

[petermgreen]

This is probably because they want the signature checker to fit in the CD boot loader. For historical reasons [mit.edu], bootable CDs imitate a floppy during the initial boot process, and contain an image of a 1.44MB floppy with a FAT file system.

Bootable CDs can emulate a floppy during boot but that is not the only supported boot method.

This process is so retro that the initial program loaded is executed in 16-bit X86 mode.

That's just PC BIOS booting in general though, not really much different from booting off any other media. It does mean your first state bootloader has to be small though

Re:floppy?

[jones_supa]

Verbatim still makes 1.44MB HD floppies. I guess people still need a fair amount of floppies for various niche applications, such as embedded gear or old PCs.

2020 called

[dbIII]

And asked why so many commercial operating systems still have nothing as advanced as the ZFS on *bsd in 2014.
It will take than long to get a greatly improved MS system win10, Windows RAP or whatever they want to call it.
It makes a grown man cry.

Re:2020 called

[fast turtle]

We are the Borg - your Technological and Ecological diversity will be added to the collective. Resistence is Futile.

We are Microsoft. You are using an unlicensed copy of Windows 3000. Your computers will now shutdown due to failing product activation. Good Day.

Re:bsd is dead

[fisted]

Its dead to me. I've turned my back on more than one project (security software, no less) because the author demanded I take a leap of faith with unsigned code.

Whatever you're talking about, it seems to have little to do with the matter being discussed.

Re:floppy?

[LWATCDR]

Many Steno Machines used by court reporters us Floppies.

no end to hapiness

[dimko]

All 2 users of floppy drives were very happy, rest 5 didn't care.

Too expensive

[tiagosousa]

Won't this increase their electricity bill?

Re:Too expensive

[chriscappuccio]

Signing with pkg_add+signify was designed to add negligible time to the package building process. It was carefully incorporated to this end. And, works quite nicely.

Nice example of source code (for open source)

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the preamble, not a single fucking comment in the entire source file.
Way to go....
I am sure it will be easily maintainable by someone else in the future and they won't make any mistakes..

Re:arc4random

[chriscappuccio]

Indeed, arc4random is ChaCha20-based in OpenBSD 5.5.

Re:Theo Theo Theo

[chriscappuccio]

Slow and secure are not necessarily related. There are cases where OpenBSD is 1-2% slower because of some specific security feature, such as 100% PIE executables, but the real slow downs are from old BSD code which is slowly being reworked to be fast and efficient. There are only so many people and so many minutes in a day to make these improvements.

The general idea on Slashdot that OpenBSD is slow because it's secure is just plain WRONG. It's slow (less and less so, I might add) because it takes time to speed it up and that is a priority for some, not all, developers.

Party like it's 1999

[ebvwfbw]

Great. Glad they did it.

Finally. BSD is just up to the late 1990s. RedHat had their RPM in 1997 and I think by 1999 even Microsoft signed their stuff. If it weren't for the done for FREE port for Apple, I think it would have died years ago.

Bring more stuff into the kernel and maybe I'll consider trying it again.

Package signatures were supported since 2010

[ConstantineM]

For what it's worth, it would seem like [a different kind of?] a package signature system was actually supported since 2010, it's just that the official packages were never signed.

http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq15.html#PkgSig

Revision 1.71:
Sat Jul 17 09:02:47 2010 UTC (3 years, 6 months ago) by ajacoutot
Changes since revision 1.70: +65 -1 lines

Add a "Package signatures" section to teach people how to create and use
signed packages. Still opened for enhancement but all info is there now.