adityasaky
Joined 9 years ago
Joined 9 years ago
The paper is from quite a few years ago now and the reference is for a subset of gittuf's threat model, specifically the metadata manipulation / reference state attacks. The paper talks about MITM as one way to carry out a ref state attack, but if you're communicating with a compromised repository, you can be a victim of such an attack even if you're using authenticated transport and using signed commits / tags that you have a way of verifying.
We do have a threat model for gittuf that we've been meaning to add [0] to the design doc. I'll try and get that done today. It should probably be in there before we tag our alpha release. :)
Not at present! Do you have a link or so I could use to familiarize myself? I'm curious if and how it'd fall within gittuf's scope.
> does it block garbage collection?
Nope, it doesn't. That said, the repository will have more objects, gittuf tracks additional objects through custom refs in `refs/gittuf/`.
> how do you ensure that the developers are really the developers and there's no spoofing?
At present, gittuf policies use signing keys. It doesn't rely on the commit metadata for author and committer but rather the commit's signature. We support GPG and Sigstore's gitsign [0] right now, and we want to support other signing mechanisms like SSH keys as well.
For those who care about a and b, I think the work we want to do to support in-toto attestations [0] for SLSA's upcoming source track [1] could be very interesting as well.