Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Supporting the kernel.org transparency log #648

Open
Foxboron opened this issue Apr 18, 2022 · 5 comments
Open

Supporting the kernel.org transparency log #648

Foxboron opened this issue Apr 18, 2022 · 5 comments
Labels
question Further information is requested

Comments

@Foxboron
Copy link
Contributor

kernel.org maintains a transparency log in the form of a git repository and I was wondering how one should go about supporting this for the omnifeeder? Currently creating proofs is impractical as one would need to traverse the git repository and not all entries on the log is signed either. I'm a bit unsure about the usefulness of supporting git repositories like this in general?

Would it be better to throw the entries on a serverless implementation maybe?

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/infra/transparency-logs/gitolite/git/1.git/

I wrote up a monitor last year, but something more sound would probably be better :) https://tlog.linderud.dev/

@AlCutter
Copy link
Member

Hi Morten,

Yes, the omniwitness (and others here) are specifically targeted at verifying Merkle tree based logs, it'll be hard to have them support git trees (I suspect a consistency "proof" there is essentially a fast-forward merge of the intervening commits!)

The serverless log might be a good fit if you want to bring things closer in shape to some of the other transparency ecosystems - perhaps it might be worthwhile working through what a claimant model based description of such a system might be?

@rmhrisk
Copy link

rmhrisk commented Apr 19, 2022

Yes, I think the serverless log work is perfect for this use case. If you were to use that then the omniwitness work would be able to support your effort also.

@mhutchinson
Copy link
Contributor

@Foxboron anything we can do to help you make progress with this?

@mhutchinson mhutchinson added the question Further information is requested label May 17, 2022
@Foxboron
Copy link
Contributor Author

I don't think so. The work on having kernel.org working with omniwitness would imply having to write something that parses their current log into something compatible and have them parse it. It's more of a collaborative thing with the current kernel.org maintainers then a programming challenge. Probably need to chat with Konstantin to see what he is thinking around the future of transparency logs on kernel.org

@AlCutter
Copy link
Member

Hi @Foxboron,

I'm not sure if this is something you're still interested in/actively pursuing, but I just wanted to let you know that we've recently "promoted" serverless logs out of here and into its own repo: https://github.com/transparency-dev/serverless-log .
If you were using/interested in using it, this should give you a much cleaner dep without much of the other indirect deps which this repo carries.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
question Further information is requested
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants