Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So much time has been wasted on reproducible builds which could have better spent on securing more important parts of Debian. Practically minor changes like a build timestamp being different is not an issue.


It allows verifying that the binaries actually match the source, which is extremely valuable.


Bit for bit matching is not required for that.


It makes it much simpler and more robust though. Also, it allows for content addressing a la Nix, among other benefits.


I reject that those benefits are actually that useful compared to the effort needed to do so.

You can content addressing without reproducible builds. You just have a canonical version, which typically is built by the application developer.


Yes, making sure build timestamps are reproducible isn't a security win.

What is a win is that two independent parties can run the same build, and get the same binaries.

This is important because it removes trust from builders: anyone can verify their output.

It just so happens that unimportant things like build versions impede that.


Anyone can verify the actual code in the binary matches even if some bytes within the binary file itself are different. The verification routine doesn't have to be a basic bit for bit equality test.


For sure.

This has been the status quo in Debian for a while now. You can build, and use diffoscope to audit the differences.

It's a stronger security property to have bit-for-bit reproducibilty, and it looks like Debian are ready to commit to it.


You are just restating the point of the thread and not addressing the low return on investment doing this is.


Fair point.

I had figured the cost would decrease in time as deterministic builds became the norm (i.e. build tools stop including build timestamps).

I agree that it might not have positive POI. Bit tricky for me to judge.


you are free to provide patches instead of bitching.


And Debian is able to offer me a few million dollars yearly to help fix their security situation.


the idea that debian has a few million dollars to spare creates the assumption, that even if they would have... you would either not know how to fix issues, or not worth it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: