A signature only tells you where something came from, not whether it’s safe. Saying APT is more secure than Docker just because it checks signatures is like saying a mysterious package from a stranger is safer because it includes a signed postcard and matches the delivery company’s database. You still have to trust both the sender and the delivery company. Sure, it’s important to reject signatures you don’t recognize—but the bigger question is: who do you trust?
APT trusts its keyring. Docker pulls over HTTPS with TLS, which already ensures you’re talking to the right registry. If you trust the registry and the image source, that’s often enough. If you don’t, tools like Cosign let you verify signatures. Pulling random images is just as risky as adding sketchy PPAs or running curl | bash—unless, again, you trust the source. I certainly trust Debian and Ubuntu more than Docker the company, but “no signature = insecure” misses the point.
Pointing out supply chain risks is good. But calling Docker “insecure” without nuance shuts down discussion and doesn’t help anyone think more critically about safer practices.
jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 week ago
You know it doesn’t verify any signature on download, right?
ianonavy@lemmy.world 1 week ago
A signature only tells you where something came from, not whether it’s safe. Saying APT is more secure than Docker just because it checks signatures is like saying a mysterious package from a stranger is safer because it includes a signed postcard and matches the delivery company’s database. You still have to trust both the sender and the delivery company. Sure, it’s important to reject signatures you don’t recognize—but the bigger question is: who do you trust?
APT trusts its keyring. Docker pulls over HTTPS with TLS, which already ensures you’re talking to the right registry. If you trust the registry and the image source, that’s often enough. If you don’t, tools like Cosign let you verify signatures. Pulling random images is just as risky as adding sketchy PPAs or running curl | bash—unless, again, you trust the source. I certainly trust Debian and Ubuntu more than Docker the company, but “no signature = insecure” misses the point.
Pointing out supply chain risks is good. But calling Docker “insecure” without nuance shuts down discussion and doesn’t help anyone think more critically about safer practices.
jagged_circle@feddit.nl 1 week ago
Oof, TLS isnt a replacement for signatures. There’s a reason most package managers use release sognstirse. x.509 is broken.
And, yes PGP has a WoT to solve its PKI. That’s why we can trust apt sigs and not docker sigs.