logoalt Hacker News

elricyesterday at 5:51 PM3 repliesview on HN

This is depressing.

From what I can piece together while the site is down, it seems like they've uncovered 14 exploitable vulnerabilities in GnuPG, of which most remain unpatched. Some of those are apparently met by refusal to patch by the maintainer. Maybe there are good reasons for this refusal, maybe someone else can chime in on that?

Is this another case of XKCD-2347? Or is there something else going on? Pretty much every Linux distro depends on PGP being pretty secure. Surely IBM & co have a couple of spare developers or spare cash to contribute?


Replies

akerl_yesterday at 7:31 PM

> Surely IBM & co have a couple of spare developers or spare cash to contribute?

A major part of the problem is that GPG’s issues aren’t cash or developer time. It’s fundamentally a bad design for cryptographic usage. It’s so busy trying to be a generic Swiss Army knife for every possible user or use case that it’s basically made of developer and user footguns.

The way you secure this is by moving to alternative, purpose-built tools. Signal/WhatsApp for messaging, age for file encryption, minisign for signatures, etc.

ameliaquiningyesterday at 8:07 PM

If by "pretty much every Linux distro depends on PGP being pretty secure" you're referring to its use to sign packages in Linux package managers, it's worth noting that they use PGP in fairly narrowly constrained ways; in particular, the data is often already trusted because it was downloaded over HTTPS from a trusted server (making PGP kind of redundant in some ways). So most PGP vulnerabilities don't affect them.

If there were a PGP vulnerability that actually made it possible to push unauthorized updates to RHEL or Fedora systems, then probably IBM would care, but if they concluded that PGP's security problems were a serious threat then I suspect they'd be more likely to start a migration away from PGP than to start investing in making PGP secure; the former seems more tractable and would have maintainability benefits besides.

show 4 replies
collinfunkyesterday at 5:54 PM

Haven't read it since it is down, but based on other comments, it seems to be an issue with cleartext signatures.

I haven't seen those outside of old mailing list archives. Everyone uses detached signatures nowadays, e.g. PGP/MIME for emails.

show 1 reply