Re: GNU Coding Standards, automake, and the recent xz-utils backdoor

[Jacob Bachmeyer]

Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
> > [...]
> >     
> > > I agree that distcheck is good but not a cure all.  Any static
> > > system can be attacked when there is motive, and unit tests are
> > > easily gamed.
> > >       
> > The issue seems to be releases containing binary data for unit tests,
> > instead of source or scripts to generate that data.  In this case,
> > that binary data was used to smuggle in heavily obfuscated object
> > code.
> >     
>
> As a side note, GNU poke (https://jemarch.net/poke) is good for
> generating arbitrarily complex binary data from clear textual
> descriptions.

While it is suitable for that use, at last check poke is itself very 
complex, complete with its own JIT-capable VM.  This is good for 
interactive use, but I get nervous about complexity in testsuites, where 
simplicity can greatly aid debugging, and it /might/ be possible to hide 
a backdoor similarly in a poke pickle.  (This seems to be a general 
problem with powerful interactive editors.)

Further, GNU poke defines its own specialized programming language for 
manipulating binary data.  Supplying generator programs in C (or C++) 
for binary test data in a package that itself uses C (or C++) ensures 
that every developer with the skills to improve or debug the package can 
also understand the testcase generators.


-- Jacob