Re: [COSE] Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-cose-countersign-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

On 2022-09-09, at 02:36, Paul Wouters <paul.wouters=40aiven.io@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> I am fine with a pointer to a downloadable source which can also contain the commands to install the software.

OK.  In this case the obvious pointer to use would be

https://github.com/cabo/cbor-diag

This is a repo that contains the code as well as a README.md with installation instructions (gem install…).

> Upon compromise, the pointer can be updated to protect the immutable RFC text. Wether it points to GitHub or IETF or elsewhere doesn’t matter to me.

This more useful than a simple “gem install” under the assumption that neither github itself nor the github user cabo will go rogue.
(An indirection via the IETF would give the IETF more control, but also more responsibility and possibly some process issues.)

Grüße, Carsten

> 
> Paul
> 
> Sent using a virtual keyboard on a phone
> 
>> On Sep 8, 2022, at 16:04, Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sep 8, 2022, at 1:47 AM, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2022-09-08, at 04:14, Paul Wouters via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> DISCUSS:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>>       gem install cbor-diag
>>>> 
>>>> I am concerned about adding install commands for "programs from the internet"
>>>> within an RFC. If the rubygem for some reason becomes malicious, we cannot
>>>> pull it from the RFC (even if we pull it from the datatracker link, it would
>>>> still live on in copies of the RFC elsewhere and malicious people could point
>>>> to copies of those original RFCs to point people to downlod the malicious rubygem.
>>>> 
>>>> I would be okay with an iet.org download location of a ruby gem.
>>> 
>>> “gem install” is the appropriate way to install rubygems software, not a “location of a rubygem”.
>>> 
>>> What you seem to be asking for is some indirection so we can swap out the name of the gem in case cbor-diag becomes rogue.  That does make some sense to me, but we’d need to install that indirection somewhere in a place maintained by the IETF.
>>> 
>>> ➔ “Please consult https://www.ietf.org/software/cbor-diag for the way to install this software”.
>>> And that page would contain instructions including “gem install cbor-diag” until that goes rogue.
>>> 
>>> Can we get such a infrastructure of pages recommending software up and running?  Do we mire ourselves in process issues (who gets change control etc.)?
>>> 
>>> Data point from a quick search:
>>> The RFCs that already suggest installing rubygems via a direct “gem install” include RFC 8152, RFC 8610, RFC 9052.
>>> 
>>> (In reality, I’d expect the rubygems organization to act more quickly on a report of cbor-diag going rogue than the IETF would.)
>>> 
>>> Grüße, Carsten
>> 
>> 
>> Paul:
>> 
>> Are you satisfied with this explanation? Or, would you prefer the pointer to https://www.ietf.org/software/cbor-diag
>> 
>> Russ
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> COSE mailing list
> COSE@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cose