Re: git tag -v should verify that the tag signer intended the same tag name as the user is verifying

> On Wed 2019-03-20 23:35:48 +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> But e.g. if you've signed a v1.00 in foo.git, but also maintain bar.git
>> and have a v2.00 there, I can be fooled in foo.git with your proposed
>> change by having the v2.00 bar.git tag pushed to it (just, with the
>> proposed change, not the other way around).
>
> Presumably the tool looking for the "most interesting new tag" already
> has some sort of pattern that it looks for in a tag name (to avoid
> accidentally ingesting some development-specific, non-release tag).
>
> So yes, this is true for upstreams which issue signed release tags on
> multiple projects named with the generic form v1.2.3, but it is *not*
> true of projects which name their tags the way that (for example)
> GnuPG's upstream does (e.g. gnupg-2.2.14 and libgpg-error-1.36).
>
> In that case, and the matching pattern itself will exclude tags from
> other repositories.
>
>> It *does* help with the "pass of an old tag [from the same repository]"
>> problem, which I'd expect would realistically be the only threat model
>> that matters (forcing a downgrade to an old buggy version), whereas some
>> entirely different project is likely going to be next fed to some
>> project-specific build infrastructure and then won't even build.
>
> I agree that a cross-project tag substitution attack is more exotic than
> an in-project downgrade or freeze attack, but i'm not inclined to wager
> on it never being exploitable.  Why take that gamble?

>> I wonder if there's a more general fix to be found here that'll have
>> nothing to do with GPG or signed tags per-se. A lot of people have this
>> "given tags in the repo, what's the latest one?" problem. I think
>> they'll mostly use the --sort option now, maybe some variant of that
>> which for each <older>/<newer> tag in the chain also checked:
>>
>>     git merge-base --is-ancestor <older> <newer>
>>
>> That would serve as a check for such rouge tags, even if none of them
>> were signed, and a "they must be signed" option could be added, along
>> with "start walking from here".
>
> I agree that this is a common tag verification use case, and i've seen
> probably a dozen different attempts to do it which all fail in some
> curious ways if you assume that the repository being pulled from is
> malicious.
>
> I like the idea you're describing here, and would be happy to see some
> reasonable, easy-to-use git subcommand that says something like "find
> the most interesting tag that derives from the current HEAD".  for some
> version of "interesting", of course :) It would probably be a good start
> to have "interesting" mean:
>
>  * the tag name matches some particular pattern
>
>  * the tag is cryptographically signed by at least one member of a
>    specific curated keyring
>
>  * the tag is the "most recent" or "farthest descendant" (these are
>    subtly different, i'm not sure which one makes more sense)
>
> Anyway, the fact that there isn't an obvious perfect answer for how to
> do this shouldn't stop git from offering a reasonable, well-vetted,
> *good* answer.  Because the current situation just means that every
> project that cares about verifying signed tags makes up their own
> approach, and i would happily bet that most of them get it wrong in some
> corner case.
>
> And if there's a tool that does a sensible verification of some workflow
> that we think is reasonable, that tool will also help to encourgae
> projects to adopt that reasonable workflow.  This is a good thing!
>
>        --dkg