>>>>> Eugene V Lyubimkin <jac...@debian.org> writes:
[…]
> I'm not sure that benefits outweigh the costs. HTTPS requires that
> I trust the third-parties – mirror provider and CA. Gpgv doesn't
> require third parties.
It does; you have to trust whatever source you’ve /initially/
got the public key from. Also, TLS does /not/ actually preclude
the user from comparing the remote’s key with a copy stored
locally. For Firefox/HTTPS, the respective functionality could
be found in the Certificate Patrol add-on [1], for instance.
> To me, that makes HTTPS (even with HPKP) principally weaker than
> offline medium-agnostic cryptographic content checks. Or I am wrong
> here, will the suggested HTTPS+HPKP+… scheme protect me from
> government players?
My understanding is that the suggestion being discussed is to
use TLS /alongside/ the usual Debian/APT signatures – not
instead of them; and the primary goal is to improve user’s
privacy. That is: only the mirror operator will remain
empowered to know the packages the user’s interested in.
(As opposed to: the operators of all the networks the APT HTTP
request passes through.)
My concerns would be along the lines of [2] (“Remember that all
mirror sites are donated to Debian: the hardware, […], and the
sysadmin work to keep it running.”) Specifically, a plain-HTTP
server is easier to configure and maintain. For one thing, when
your server does /not/ use TLS, you don’t need to be concerned
with the bugs and vulnerabilities of any TLS library whatsoever.
[1] http://patrol.psyced.org/
[2]
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20161017142819.72lbe3kh346c4h62@exolobe3
--
FSF associate member #7257 58F8 0F47 53F5 2EB2 F6A5 8916 3013 B6A0 230E 334A
