Is that actually tiny core? It’s _likely_ it is, but that’s not good enough.
> this same thing came up a few years ago
Honestly, that makes this inexcusable. There are numerous SSL providers available for free, and if that’s antithetical to them, they can use a self signed certificate and provide an alternative method of verification (e.g. via mailing list). The fact they don’t take this seriously means there is 0 chance I would install it!
I don’t think so, but it’s always struck me as a good idea - it’s actual decentralised verification of a value that can be confirmed by multiple people independently without trusting anyone other than the signing key is secure.
> I am used to code signing with HSMs
Me too, but that requires distributing the public key securely which… is exactly where we started this!
An integrity check where both what you're checking and the hash you're checking against is literally not better than nothing if you're trying to prevent downloading compromised software. It'd flag corrupted downloads at least, so that's cool, but for security purposes the hash for a artifact has to be served OOB.
It is better than nothing if you note it down. You can compare it later if somebody / or you was compromised to see whether you had the same download as everyone else.
Sorry but this is nonsense. It’s better than nothing if you proactively log the hashes before you need them, but it’s actively harmful for anyone wi downloads it after it’s compromised.
"It is better than nothing" is literally what I said. But thinking about it more, I actually think is quite useful. Any kind of signature or out-of-band hash is also only good if the source is not compromised, but knowing after the fact whether you are affected or not is extremely valuable.
