On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Alexandre Zani wrote:

                                     
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Donald Stufft <donald.stufft@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alexandre Zani wrote:


Key distribution is the real issue though. If there isn't a key
distribution infrastructure in place, we might as well not bother with
signatures. PyPI could issue x509 certs to packagers. You wouldn't be
able to verify that the name given is accurate, but you would be able
to verify that all packages with the same listed author are actually
by that author.

I've been sketching out ideas for key distribution, but it's very much
a chicken and egg problem, very few people sign their packages (because
nothing uses it currently), and nobody is motivated to work on
infrastructure
or tooling because no one signs their packages.

Are those ideas available publicly? I would love to chip in.
">

(original) (raw)

Not at the moment, but I could gather them up and make them public later today. They
are very rough draft at the moment.

On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 1:09 PM, Alexandre Zani wrote:

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Donald Stufft <donald.stufft@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, June 22, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Alexandre Zani wrote:


Key distribution is the real issue though. If there isn't a key
distribution infrastructure in place, we might as well not bother with
signatures. PyPI could issue x509 certs to packagers. You wouldn't be
able to verify that the name given is accurate, but you would be able
to verify that all packages with the same listed author are actually
by that author.

I've been sketching out ideas for key distribution, but it's very much
a chicken and egg problem, very few people sign their packages (because
nothing uses it currently), and nobody is motivated to work on
infrastructure
or tooling because no one signs their packages.

Are those ideas available publicly? I would love to chip in.