Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Why allowing Hudson to write to your downloads is a Bad Idea.

I never said anyone should do any of that. I never said you shouldn't trust the output of Hudson either.

I only suggested what is in the subject line of this email: allowing Hudson to write to your downloads is a Bad Idea.  And I explained why.

We simply got here for argument's sake.

Denis



On 09/14/2011 11:15 AM, Chris Recoskie wrote:

So... suddenly our builds will take days for someone to build it, grab it, test it, and promote it, and even then it's highly unlikely that they'd catch anything that a somewhat competent attacker would throw at us. There's no way anyone is going to take on this overhead.

===========================
Chris Recoskie
Team Lead, IBM CDT and RDT
IBM Toronto

Inactive
          hide details for Denis Roy ---09/14/2011 10:09:39 AM---On
          09/14/2011 10:02 AM, Ed Merks wrote: > I agree with Doug.Denis Roy ---09/14/2011 10:09:39 AM---On 09/14/2011 10:02 AM, Ed Merks wrote: > I agree with Doug.


From:

Denis Roy <denis.roy@xxxxxxxxxxx>

To:

Cross project issues <cross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

09/14/2011 10:09 AM

Subject:

Re: [cross-project-issues-dev] Why allowing Hudson to write to your downloads is a Bad Idea.

Sent by:

cross-project-issues-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx





On 09/14/2011 10:02 AM, Ed Merks wrote:
      I agree with Doug.

      At no point have I seen anyone answer this question:
          What can be done manually to determine if what's produced by Hudson is compromised or not?
Off the top of my head:

1. run a build on a remote system and compare the pre-signed binaries.

2. run a past build and compare today's binaries with those in the past.

3. run a build and examine the execution trace.

4. run a build, run the executable and examine network output for unknown activity.


      I also have to question whether this change during the SR1 shutdown phase is appropriate timing...
Go download the latest Linux Kernel from Kernel.org and tell me if there is ever a more appropriate time than 'now' to discuss security.

Denis


      Regards,
      Ed


      On 14/09/2011 6:55 AM, Schaefer, Doug wrote:
          I'll come back to something Dave Carver mentioned yesterday. If we don't trust Hudson, then we shouldn't be using it, or at least should be wrapping it up in tighter security, like a VPN for example. If someone is going to do something malicious and they're smart, you're likely not going to be able to discover it. You have to cut it at the source.

          And is this not an issue other Hudson/Jenkins users have run into? What are they doing for security. Or do they trust Hudson as much as they do ssh.

          Doug.

          _______________________________________________


Back to the top