zlacker

How could a build be verified to be the same code without some kind of signature? You cant just validate a SHA, that could be faked from a client.

If you want to get a package that is in the Arch core/ repo, doesnt that require a form of attestation?

I just don’t see a slippery slope towards dropping support for unofficial clients, we’re already at the bottom where they are generally and actively rejected for various reasons.

Still, the Android case is admittedly disturbing, it feels a lot more personal to be forced to use certain OS builds; that goes beyond the scope of how I would define a client.

>>reilly+(OP)
Where we "already" are is not a state to be anchored on.

>>pishpa+kh
That’s fair. Its just to say there is a lot of context for client verification in software. Competitive multiplayer gaming has become an arms races of exploits and invasive anti-cheat measures; there is no concept of bring-your-own-client when there is money on the line.

Valve has taken a less heavy-handed approach and let users have more freedom over their client and UI, but they also have a massive bot problem in titles like TF2.

I can’t connect to my work network from a random client, and it will throw flags and eventually block me if I connect with an out-of-date OS version.

I can’t present any piece of paper with my banking data and a signature on it and expect other parties to accept it. I have to present it on an authorized document.

I guess money may be the common denominator here.

>>reilly+(OP)
> How could a build be verified to be the same code without some kind of signature? You cant just validate a SHA, that could be faked from a client.

This depends on how far down the rabbit hole you want to go, if it was secureboot, only signed processes can run, would that make you feel better ? If it doesn't.. what would ?