-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 47
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
Refactor mime-handling configuration from Salt (at provisioning) to systemd (at boot) #1042
Refactor mime-handling configuration from Salt (at provisioning) to systemd (at boot) #1042
Comments
Quoting @rocodes from another thread:
|
@rocodes said:
I did look into before implementing the mimetype overriding via systemd (as opposed to salt). I decided not to do that approach while doing that PR because it would require more investigation on the actual effectiveness and some red flags popped up (and this is pretty critical code). So my suggestion would be discuss that as a separate issue. Here are my findings:
I think there are better approaches than the current we have. I think the answer is somewhere along the lines of what Qubes does, but:
But that said, my assessment is that considering this change when tackling the present issue (system provisioning) is a bit of scope-creep for now and we should address it separately. |
Yup I agree with you @deeplow, I'm musing about the future (and/or the proxy) but don't think this should be part of the immediate game plan, the changes you've proposed are solid |
This includes several changes: - move MIME overriding-logic into the securedrop-client repo to be implemented as systemd services for on-boot provisioning. - makes sd-proxy into a disposable with sd-proxy-dvm as the template. This is thanks to the fact that we no longer need sd-proxy to keep any state as the only thing holding it was the need for MIME override provisioning. - additionally this removes provisioning complexity since we can avoid salt provisioning from 3 qubes: sd-proxy, sd-devices and sd-viewer. Fixes freedomofpress#1042
This includes several changes: - move MIME overriding-logic into the securedrop-client repo to be implemented as systemd services for on-boot provisioning. - makes sd-proxy into a disposable with sd-proxy-dvm as the template. This is thanks to the fact that we no longer need sd-proxy to keep any state as the only thing holding it was the need for MIME override provisioning. - additionally this removes provisioning complexity since we can avoid salt provisioning from 3 qubes: sd-proxy, sd-devices and sd-viewer. Fixes #1042
Fixes freedomofpress/securedrop-workstation#1042, complemented by freedomofpress/securedrop-workstation#1043. Implemention reasoning: - Failure to setup leads shutdown to make this security-critical component loud on failures - Running in disp. templates fails (e.g. sd-viewer) to prevent populating user's home directory, thus contaminating all disposables based on them. - MIME-handling behavior set via qubesdb - pass vm-specific data via the vm-config qubes feature (accessible through QubesDB) [1]. - Started after rsyslog.service to allow failure logging [1]: https://dev.qubes-os.org/projects/core-admin-client/en/latest/manpages/qvm-features.html#vm-config
This includes several changes: - move MIME overriding-logic into the securedrop-client repo to be implemented as systemd services for on-boot provisioning. - makes sd-proxy into a disposable with sd-proxy-dvm as the template. This is thanks to the fact that we no longer need sd-proxy to keep any state as the only thing holding it was the need for MIME override provisioning. - additionally this removes provisioning complexity since we can avoid salt provisioning from 3 qubes: sd-proxy, sd-devices and sd-viewer. Fixes #1042
Description
Partly fixes #1004, by moving mime-time overrides onto systemd services for provisioning at boot.
How will this impact SecureDrop/SecureDrop Workstation users?
How will this impact SecureDrop/SecureDrop Workstation users?
No user implications.
How would this affect the SecureDrop Workstation threat model?
Along with #1001, this assumes we are comfortable with runtime (boot-time) configuration of VMs' roles and services, #936 (comment).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: