But then there is also the question if you trust github (and because of that microsoft, but also the USA because of laws) with always building from the sources, and adding nothing more.

Yesterday I would have said ‘blah, they would not care about my particular small project’. But since then I read the paper recommended by a user in this post about building a compromised compiler that would installs a back-door to a type of login field. I now think it is not so crazy to think that intelligence agencies might collude with Microsoft to insert specific back-doors that somehow allows them to break privacy-related protocols or even recover private keys. Many of these might rely on a specific fundamental principle and so this could be recognized and exploited by a compiler. I came here for a practical answer to a simple practical situation, but I have learned a lot extra 😁

No, I’m not concerned about a lawsuit. It’s something that I want to do because I think that it is important. If I want to share tools with non-tech savvy people who are unable to build them from source, I want to be able to share these without anyone needing to “trust” me. The reproducible builds standards are a very nice idea, and I will learn how to implement them.

But I still wonder whether my approach is valid or not - is printing the hash of the output executable during Github’s build process, such that it is visible in the workflow logs, very strong evidence that the executable in the release with the same hash was built by github through the transparent build process? Or is there a way a regular user would be able to fake these logs?

But, if during Github’s build process the sha156sum of the output binary is printed, and the hash matches what is in the release, isn’t this enough to demonstrate that the binary in the release is the binary built during the workflow?

Ooh, I did not know this one was of the properties of Rust.

Thanks! I am convinced now, I will learn how to create reproducible builds.

My worry is that the build is run through npm, and I think that the dependencies rely on additional dependencies such as openssl libraries. I worry that it will be a lot of work to figure out what every npm dependency is, what libraries they depend on, and how to make sure that the correct versions can be installed and linked by someone trying to reproduce the build 10 years from now. So it looks like a difficult project, but I will read more about it and hopefully it is not as complicated as it looks!

Ooh, I think I found the paper!

Oof:

The actual bug I planted in the compiler would match code in the UNIX “login” command. The re- placement code would miscompile the login command so that it would accept either the intended encrypted password or a particular known password. Thus if this code were installed in binary and the binary were used to compile the login command, I could log into that system as any user

Ah. Cool. I was under the impression that docker images suffered from a similar issue - that one can’t verify that the image is built from the source. I’m happy to be mistaken about that.

How does a docker distribution solve this problem? Is it because the build instructions are automated by the Dockerfile?

My new phone runs GrapheneOS and I love it.

One recommendation that I would give people is that it does not need to be an all-or-nothing jump into the abyss. It can be a bit disheartening when you try to get rid of all the privacy-invasive things in your life and you get cut off from your family and friends.

After some failed attempts, the strategy that I have found more successful is that I have new phone that I installed GrapheneOS into, and I keep the older phone with whatsapp. The older phone is in Airplane mode connected to WiFi at my home. It is effectively a landline. I can still use it once or twice a day to check on my family through WhatsApp without having to broadcast my location all day to Meta. This way I don’t need to install any sandboxed Google Play services into my new phone. The old phone is the sandboxed Google Play. I also use the old phone for verifications, 2FA, and any other things that I don’t want to contaminate my new phone with.

Over time I am finding that my GrapheneOS is perfectly functional. The main difficulty is the chats services that are used by my family, friends, and work-related “group chats”. I have convinced some people to join my XMPP server, including my mom (wuhuu), but it is an uphill battle. That’s why the other phone is still essential for me.

Thanks. In the future I work using the Reproducible Builds practices and use OpenBSD to sign my builds.

In the immediate situation I want to know whether there is a way to use GitHub as my trusted third-party builder. I would like to share something with people - some of who might not have the skills to replicate the build themselves, but I still would like to be able to point them to something that is easy to understand and give them argument.

My current argument is: “See, in the github logs you can see that github generated that hash internally during the workflow, and it matches the hash of the file that you have downloaded. So this way you can be sure that this build really comes from this source code, which was only changed here and there”. Of course I need to make absolutely sure that my argument is solid. I know that I’m not being malicious, but I don’t want to give them an argument of trust and then find out that I have mislead them about the argument, and that it was in fact possible to fake this.

I think you can even upload release files manually, independently of if you use actions or not, so it can never be guaranteed that it was built from the sources.

True, but that’s why my current idea is the following:

As part of the wortkflow, GitHub will build the executable, compute a few different hashes (sha256sum, md5, etc…), and those hashes will be printed out in the GitHub logs. In that same workflow, GitHub will upload the files directly to the release.

So, if someone downloads the executable, they can compute the sha256sum and check that it matches the sha256 that was computed by github during the action.

Is this enough to prove that executable they are downloading the same executable that GitHub built during that workflow? Since a workflow is associated a specific push, it is possible to check the source code that was used for that workflow.

In this case, I think that the only one with the authority to fake the logs or mess with the source during the build process would be GitHub, and it would be really hard for them to do it because they would need to prepare in advance specifically for me. Once the workflow goes through, I can save the hashes too and after that both GitHub and I would need to conspire to trick the users.

So, I am trying to understand whether my idea is flawed and there is a way to fake the hashes in the logs, or if I am over-complicating things and there is already a mechanism in place to guarantee a build.

I think that any step that facilitates verifying the build is great. If trust is required, then I should simply not release any executables if I want to remain anonymous. I would like to be able to release executables without needing to ask people to blindly trust me. I would like to be able to show them reasonably good evidence that the program is built from the source that I say it is.

If I understand this correctly, signify would allow someone to verify that the executable was built by me. But then they would still have to trust me, because I can also sign the malicious executable.

Having 55% of hash doesn’t mean you’ll make profit by attempting a doublespend

But a pool could be turned into a malicious pool by an adversary that takes control of it. A clear disadvantages of centralization is that it creates a single point of failure.

Even a malicious pool could at worst mine empty blocks for a while.

Why is this the case? I still have not studied the Monero protocol yet.

The creator of the tool is the admin of lemmings.world, and the tool is hosted at schedule.lemmings.world. So, if you have a user at lemmings.world, you can use this tool without having to trust a third-party.

If you don’t have a user there, you can create a user in that instance for the purpose of creating scheduled posts. Removing the need to trust two parties rather than one.

And, of course, since the source code is open anyone else can attach this to their own instance! Pretty cool.

There is also a “purge community” button. But I have learned that if I purge a non-local community the purge is so complete that your instamce forgets it ever existed… And it can simply be fetched again!

Great work!! Are you working on some other next project now?

1. I purchase Monero through Kraken

2. Not sure

3. It is not exactly the same as KYC, because KYC is about the exchange verifying your identity, keeping a record of who you are, keeping a record of your transactions, and the crypto addressees that they send you funds to.

It depends on what your goal is and who is looking at your finances. If you want to buy hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Monero to avoid paying taxes, then your bank and potentially the tax authorities will pay attention to a massive transaction leaving your account and disappearing into a non-KYC crypto exchange. So, from that point of view, it is effectively similar to KYC.

But if you are interested in privacy and the per-transaction amounts are not massive, then both the bank and the exchange will still have some record of the transaction tied to your identity. But the bank is unlikely to take notice, and the exchange, being a Non-KYC, will not verify your identity nor is it under the same level of pressure to keep detailed records. Still, some of your information is leaked and it is out there.

Monero is very private, so even with KYC you can pull it off the exchange and your identity is immediately disassociated from it.

Depending on how much you want to buy, and who you know, one way of getting it is to buy it from a friend or an acquaintance.

I see you!