Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VS4H6-0005ZS-HQ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:14:28 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org designates 62.13.149.56 as permitted sender) client-ip=62.13.149.56; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org; helo=outmail149056.authsmtp.com; Received: from outmail149056.authsmtp.com ([62.13.149.56]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1VS4H5-0007Qa-Ea for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:14:28 +0000 Received: from mail-c235.authsmtp.com (mail-c235.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.235]) by punt10.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r94CELqg024065; Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:14:21 +0100 (BST) Received: from savin (76-10-178-109.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.178.109]) (authenticated bits=128) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/) with ESMTP id r94CEGjw060768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:14:18 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 08:14:15 -0400 From: Peter Todd To: Arto Bendiken Message-ID: <20131004121415.GA7084@savin> References: <3552695.aET6a1zFq8@momentum> <20131004113517.GA8373@savin> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="opJtzjQTFsWo+cga" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Server-Quench: 7ed2e8e5-2cee-11e3-b802-002590a15da7 X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZNQRgX IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR aAdMdgYUF1YAAgsB AmUbWldeUVl7WGo7 bAxPbAVDY01GQQRq WVdMSlVNFUsqCBhy c2lEFRl0dwJAcDB5 Yk5iEHcOCEYvfRN4 X0wHQDgbZGY1a31N WEBaagNUcgZDfk5E bwQuUz1vNG8XDQg5 AwQ0PjZ0MThBJSBS WgQAK04nCW0MEjN0 XR0cHDgwdQAA X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1023:706 X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255) X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 76.10.178.109/587 X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own anti-virus system. X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: petertodd.org] X-Headers-End: 1VS4H5-0007Qa-Ea Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Code review X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 12:14:28 -0000 --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 01:58:51PM +0200, Arto Bendiken wrote: > On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Peter Todd wrote: > > The second caveat is more specific to Bitcoin: people tend to rebase > > their pull-requests over and over again until they are accepted, but > > that also means that code review done earlier doesn't apply to the later > > code pushed. Bitcoin is a particularly high profile, and high profit, > > target for people trying to get malicious code into the codebase. >=20 > On that note, this 2003 example of an attempt to backdoor the Linux > kernel is pertinent: >=20 > http://lwn.net/Articles/57135/ >=20 > The backdoor in question came down to a single missing character, > easily overlooked by a reviewer if a spotlight hadn't been thrown on > it for other reasons. Compromising a Bitcoin implementation isn't > going to be as easy as that, one would hope, but certainly it seems > only a matter of time until there's an attempt at it. Exactly. Ideally code review discussions would be PGP signed and have a mechanism for someone to sign a commit saying they had in fact reviewed it. Combined with git's per-commit signature mechanism it'd make it possible to write a git-pull hook that checked that whatever was being pulled had some sufficient number of signatures from people whose reviews you trusted. With such a system you could host code review anywhere safely, or for that matter, use a completely distributed system. But that's going to be a long way off. In the meantime github is probably more trustworthy and competent than anything we ran ourselves, and we should focus on making sure reviewers eyeballs actually look at the code that ends up in master. --=20 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJSTrEXAAoJECSBQD2l8JH7bPwIAJhyRqHlPGjOlwBXym0of6Bq kQYDqg4wzhJQYqRqgiOHXvWbkvs8tw+YWaPdknqVrNWkg2q1mX3//iYsGbr6i/UI d6SYLVA/MDR9j8Ka6iXlg31Y+SOU1kE+YpdvkpDMaJ74Nu+OnGZE+8R7JW/RWATq 8/av+fcLMb9LykaZidvteXy65qiHP4RuFlKDVku0vpd1yYHgEnh8qn7xJRhjTiCL xp6fCFoxugLxGzaib/uiY3UqVZdjZbgSbE/d+QIlVfYi4yecVBDxHySmXDwIaSag YrM6QTFV0BdwObWChedZbXG/6SeUj8k2Qniu6PCdB8j7gw8ngyrpJhJhQDyTXo0= =XFOH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --opJtzjQTFsWo+cga--