currently when sigul signs a package it gets a copy of the rpm from koji, copies it to the bridge, then copies it to the vault and back... for large rpms thats a lot of copying around. See if there's some way to sign just the hash of the rpm. obs-sign does this apparently: https://github.com/openSUSE/obs-sign
Probably possible. The cost is that the vault then can not reliably say anything about the NEVRA of the signed RPM and you need the bridge logs for that. If an attacker compromises the bridge and gets something signed, you might be able to figure out that they have signed something but unless they keep a copy of the RPM around, there will be no way to know anything about that package (not even a name).
Yeah, that would be a slight reduction in security indeed. We could log a hash, but that won't likely help us much in the case you mention. Anyhow, just something to investigate and see if it is worth it.
So, even if we do still copy the RPM to the server, we can get rid of the copy from the server to the bridge in the koji-only case by doing the sighdr ripping on the server side. The bridge does not do anything with the file other than ripping out the sighdr and forwarding that to koji, so that should not do anything from a security standpoint, but save at least 50% of the file transfers.
Makes sense. (The cost is the “extra” risk of the parsing etc. for ripping the header, but considering all the parsing etc. that has been done to create the signature in the first place, that’s probably very close zero additional risk.)
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 26 development cycle. Changing version to '26'.
I am planning to fix this together with the protocol version bump for bug #1462565.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 27 development cycle. Changing version to '27'.
This message is a reminder that Fedora 27 is nearing its end of life. On 2018-Nov-30 Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 27. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '27'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version. Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not able to fix it before Fedora 27 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete.
Fedora 27 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2018-11-30. Fedora 27 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.