[Haskell-cafe] [haskell-infrastructure] Improvements to package hosting and security
carter.schonwald at gmail.com
Wed Apr 15 12:19:45 UTC 2015
Ok, let me counter that with a simpler idea: every Hackage edit action has
an explanation field that the trustee can choose to optionally write some
And additonally: there Is a globally visible feed / log of all Hackage
I believe some folks are working to add those features to hackage this
I am emphatically against stronger security things being tacked on top
without a threat model that precisely jusrifies why. Recent experience has
shown me that organizations which mandate processes in the the name of a
nebulous security model counter intuitively become less secure and less
Let me repeat myself, enterprise sounding security processes should only be
adopted in the context of a concrete threat model that actually
specifically motivates the applicable security model. Anything else is
kiss of death. Please be concrete. Additonally, specificity allows us to
think of approaches that can be both secure and easy to use.
On Apr 15, 2015 2:47 AM, "Michael Snoyman" <michael at snoyman.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:14 AM Gershom B <gershomb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On April 15, 2015 at 1:57:07 AM, Michael Snoyman (michael at snoyman.com)
>> > I'm not intimately familiar with the Hackage API, so I can't give a
>> > point-by-point description of what information is and is not auditable.
>> Okay, then why did you write "There's a lot of stuff going on inside of
>> Hackage which we have no insight into or control over.”?
>> I would very much like to have a clarifying discussion, as you are
>> gesturing towards some issue we should think about. But it is difficult
>> when you make broad claims, and are not able to explain what they mean.
> I think you're reading too much into my claims, and specifically on the
> unimportant aspects of them. I can clarify these points, but I think
> drilling down deeper is a waste of time. To answer this specific question:
> * There's no clarity on *why* change was approved. I see that person X
> uploaded a revision, but why was person X allowed to do so?
> * I know of no way to see the history of authorization rules.
> * Was JohnDoe always a maintainer of foobar, or was that added at some
> * Who added this person as a maintainer?
> * Who gave this other person trustee power? Who took it away?
> All of these things would come for free with an open system where
> authorization rules are required to be encoded in a freely viewable file,
> and signature are used to verify the data.
> And to be clear, to make sure no one thinks I'm saying otherwise: I don't
> think Hackage has done anything wrong by approaching things the way it has
> until now. I probably would have come up with a very similar system. I'm
> talking about new functionality and requirements that weren't stated for
> the original system. Don't take this as "Hackage is bad," but rather, "time
> to batten down the hatches."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe