[belval]

I get that, that's why I didn't go "This is Embrace Extend Extinguish", but as constructive feedback I would recommend softening the language and to replace:

> STOP! You probably don't need this section;

In https://docs.pypi.org/attestations/producing-attestations/#t...

Perhaps also add a few of the providers you listed as well?

> The only reason it emphasizes GitHub Actions is because that's where the overwhelming majority of automatic publishing traffic comes from

GitHub being popular is a self-reinforcing process, if GitHub is your first class citizen for something as crucial as trusted publishing then projects on GitHub will see a higher adoption and become the de-facto "secure choice".

[HelloNurse]

PyPI should support and encourage open infrastructure.

If I don't want to use GitHub, let alone GitHub Actions, I am now effectively excluded from publishing my work on PyPI: quite unacceptable.

[woodruffw]

That’s now how any of this works. I am begging you to re-read the docs and understand that this does not require anybody to use GitHub, much less GitHub Actions, much less Trusted Publishing, much less attestations.

You can still, and will always be able to use API tokens.

[lucideer]

> I am begging you to re-read the docs

The gp was pointing out that the docs heavily emphasise (& therefore encourage) GHA usage & suggested language changes.

If people are confused about what they need to use Trusted Publishing & you're suggesting (begging) a re-read as the solution, that seems evidence enough that the gp is correct about the docs needing a reword.

[nmstoker]

It could just as easily imply that people aren't paying attention when they read it. Inability to understand a text is not always on the author, plenty of times it's on the reader.

[st3fan]

Well, yes and no. From the perspective of an infosec professional who is focussed on supply chain security I can tell you that your package having an attestation from a trusted platform like GitHub or GitLab gives me a warm feeling. It is not the only thing we will look at but definitely part of a longer list of checks to understand risk around dependencies.

With an attestation from GitHub I know at least that the workflow that ran it and the artifacts it produced will be 100% traceable and verifyable. This doesn't mean the code was not malicious, but for example it will rule out that someone did the build at home and attached an alternative version of an artifact to a GitHub release. Like how that was done with the xz project.

It is fine to not like GitHub, but I think that means we need more trusted builders. Developers cannot be pushed toward just GitHub.

[woodruffw]

> It is fine to not like GitHub, but I think that means we need more trusted builders. Developers cannot be pushed toward just GitHub.

Yes, agreed. This is why the docs explicitly say that we’re planning on enabling support for other publisher providers, like GitLab.

[ziddoap]

Thank you for being patient with people that seem to have willfully not read any of the docs or your clarifying comments here, are saying you are lying, and/or are making up hypothetical situations. It's appreciated!

Edit: woodruffw is sitting here and thoughtfully commenting and answering people despite how hostile some of the comments are (someone even said "This is probably deserving a criminal investigation"! and it has more upvotes than this comment). I think that should be appreciated, even if you don't like Python.

[HelloNurse]

I know attestations are not mandatory, but the rug has already been pulled: PEP 740 distinguishes "good" and "bad" packages and "good" packages require GitHub.

[cpburns2009]

Attestations are worthless unless they're checked. I have no doubt they'll eventually become the default in pip which effectively makes them mandatory for 99% of people not willing to jump through the hoops of installing an unattested package.

[HelloNurse]

The "hoops", which will only increase in the future, make GitHub-dependent attested packages privileged and give GitHub (and maybe, in the future, other inappropriate entities) significant power over open source Python packages.

[woodruffw]

It does nothing of the sort, and the current GitHub requirement is an explicitly temporary restriction, like it was for Trusted Publishing. Again: I am begging you to read the docs that we’ve compiled for this.

[lucideer]

> the current GitHub requirement is an explicitly temporary restriction

It seems reasonable to suggest that advertising a solution for public use at a point in time when support is at <2 systems is not an ideal way to encourage an open ecosystem.

[ziddoap]

This is exactly what I meant when I said "people that seem to have willfully not read any of the docs or your clarifying comments here"

[ljdgah]

Since roughly 2014 there have been so many rug pulls in the Python organization that no one believes anything any more.

It always starts small: "Oh, we just want everyone to be nice, so we have this super nice CoC document. Anyone who distrusts us is malicious."

Ten years later you have a corporate-backed inner circle that abuses the CoC to silence people, extend their power and earning potential and resort to defamation and libel.

It is possible that the people here who defend this corporate attestation-of-provenance-preferably-on-our-infrastructure scheme think that nothing nefarious will happen in the future. Well, given the repressive history of Python they are naive then.

It just takes pip to add a flag to enable "non-attested" packages. And of course they'll name it something like --allow-insecure-potentially-malicious.

[WhyNotHugo]

They’re not encouraging open infrastructure. In fact, this whole design doesn’t even contemplate the possibility of self hosting. Trust must be blindly delegated to one of the existing partners.

[woodruffw]

> but as constructive feedback I would recommend softening the language and to replace:

I can soften it, but I think you're reading it excessively negatively: that warning is there to make sure people don't try to do the fiddly, error-prone cryptographic bits if they don't need to. It's a numerical fact that most project owners don't need that section, since most are either using manual API tokens or are publishing via GitHub Actions.

> Perhaps also add a few of the providers you listed as well?

They'll be added when they're enabled. Like I said in the original comment, we're using a similar enablement pattern as happened with Trusted Publishing: GitHub was enabled first because it represents the majority of publishing traffic, followed by GitLab and the others.

> GitHub being popular is a self-reinforcing process, if GitHub is your first class citizen for something as crucial as trusted publishing then projects on GitHub will see a higher adoption and become the de-facto "secure choice".

I agree, but I don't think this is PyPI's problem to solve. From a security perspective, PyPI should prioritize the platforms where the traffic is.

(I'll note that GitLab has been supported by Trusted Publishing for a while now, and they could make the publishing workflow more of a first class citizen, the way it is on GHA.)

[belval]

> I agree, but I don't think this is PyPI's problem to solve. From a security perspective, PyPI should prioritize the platforms where the traffic is.

To me that's a bit of a weird statement, PyPI is part of the Python foundation, making sure that the project remains true to its open-source nature is reasonable?

My concern is that these type of things ultimately play out as "we are doing the right thing to limit supply chain attacks" which is good an defendable, but in ~5 years PyPI will have an announcement that they are sunsetting PyPI package upload in favor of the trusted provider system. pip (or other tooling) will add warnings whenever I install a package that is not "trusted". Maybe I am simply pessimistic.

That being said we can agree to disagree, I am not part of the PSF and I did preface my first comment with "I guess I am an idealist".

[woodruffw]

> making sure that the project remains true to its open-source nature is reasonable?

What about this, in your estimation, undermines the open-source nature of PyPI? Nothing about this is proprietary, and I can't think of any sane definition of OSS in which PyPI choosing to verify OIDC tokens from GitHub (among other IdPs!) meaningfully subverts PyPI's OSS committment.

> PyPI package upload in favor of the trusted provider system. pip (or other tooling) will add warnings whenever I install a package that is not "trusted". Maybe I am simply pessimistic.

Let me put it this way: if PyPI disables API tokens in favor of mandatory Trusted Publishing, I will eat my shoe on a livestream.

(I was the one of the engineers for both API tokens and Trusted Publishing on PyPI. They're complementary, and neither can replace the other.)

[mananaysiempre]

> What about this, in your estimation, undermines the open-source nature of PyPI?

Absence of support for self-hosting, in the spirit of freedom 0 = OSD 5&6? Or, for that matter, for any provider whose code is fully open source?

[woodruffw]

> Absence of support for self-hosting, or for that matter for any non-proprietary service?

This has nothing to do with self-hosting, whatsoever. You can upload to PyPI with an API token; that will always work and will not do anything related to Trusted Publishing, which exists entirely because it makes sense for large services.

PyPI isn't required to federate with the server in my basement through OpenID Connect to be considered open source.

[takluyver]

I believe you that token uploads will continue to be possible, but it seems likely that in a couple of years trusted publishing & attestations will be effectively required for all but the tiniest project. You'll get issues and PRs to publish this way, and either you accept them, or you have to repeatedly justify what you've got against security.

And maybe that's a good thing? I'm not against security, and supply chain attacks are real. But it's still kind of sad that the amazing machines we all own are more and more just portals to the 'trusted' corporate clouds. And I think there are things that could be done to improve security with local uploads, but all the effort seems to go into the cloud path.

[dogleash]

>> PyPI package upload in favor of the trusted provider system. pip (or other tooling) will add warnings whenever I install a package that is not "trusted". Maybe I am simply pessimistic.

> Let me put it this way: if PyPI disables API tokens in favor of mandatory Trusted Publishing, I will eat my shoe on a livestream.

Yeah, sure. But parent poster also mentioned pip changes. Will you commit to eating a shoe if pip verifies attestations? Of course not, you know better than I do that those changes to pip are in the works and experimental implementations already available. You must have forgotten to mention that. PyPI doesn't have to be the bad guy on making sure its a PITA to use those packages. Insert Futurama "technically correct, the best kind of correct" meme.

[woodruffw]

> You must have forgotten to mention that.

Insinuating dishonesty is rude, especially when it’s baseless: the post linked in this one is explicit about experimenting with verification. There’s no point in signing without verification.

pip may or may not verify attestations; I don’t control what they do. But even if they do, they will never be able to mandate them for every project: as I have repeatedly said, there is no plan (much less desire) to mandate attestation generation.

[dogleash]

Regardless of your intent, you didn't acknowledging the parent poster's concern about python overall. Just exculpated PyPI.

I believe you would have received a much less pushback if you hadn't been coy about the obviously impending quiet deprecation (for lack of a better phrase) you finally acknowledged elsewhere in the thread.

[BiteCode_dev]

I'm with @belval on this one, it's ok to prioritize github, but people that want the standard to implement an alternative should not feel like they are doing something that may not be supported.

It kinda feels like that right now.

[woodruffw]

Again, to be clear: the standard does not stipulate GitHub or any other specific identity providers. The plan is to enable GitLab and the other Trusted Publisher providers in short order.

This is exactly the same as Trusted Publishing, where people accused the feature of being a MSFT trojan horse because GitHub was enabled first. I think it would behoove everybody to assume the best intentions here and remember that the goal is to secure the most people by default.

[int_19h]

I think the point is that this needs to be made clearer in the official docs from the get go.

[woodruffw]

It's said explicitly in the second sentence in the usage docs[1].

> Attestations are currently only supported when uploading with Trusted Publishing, and currently only with GitHub-based Trusted Publishers. Support for other Trusted Publishers is planned. See #17001 for additional information.

[1]: https://docs.pypi.org/attestations/producing-attestations/

[TheRealPomax]

At this point it should be fairly obvious that if you have to defend the phrasing in multiple threads here on HN, get some folks to help rephrase the current document instead so you can comment with "we updated the text to make it clear this is a first pass and more options are getting added to the doc soon".

If you draw an ugly cat, and someone tells you it's ugly, it doesn't matter how much you insist that it isn't, and the same is true for docs. It doesn't matter what your intention was: if people keep falling over the same phrasing, just rephrase it. You're not your writing, it's just text to help support your product, and if that text is causing problems just change it (with the help of some reviewers, because it's clear you think this is phrased well enough, but you're not the target audience for this document, and the target audience is complaining).

[aseipp]

Anyone can run an OIDC system if they want. But PyPI is not under an obligation to trust an OIDC provider running on a random rpi3 in your basement. More than that, GitHub is "trusted" because we can be pretty sure they have an on-call staff to handle incidents, that they can reliably say "This token was provided on behalf of this user at this time for this build", etc.

Even if you standardized the more technical parts like OIDC claim metadata (which is 100% provider specific), it wouldn't really change the thrust of any of this — PyPI is literally trusting the publisher in a social sense, not in some "They comply with RFC standards and therefore I can plug in my random favorite thing" sense.

This whole discussion is basically a non-issue, IMO. If you want to publish stuff from your super-duper-secret underground airgapped base buried a mile underneath the Himalayas, you can use an API token like you have been able to. It will be far less hassle than running your own OIDC solution for this stuff.

[immibis]

If I can't build on a rpi3 in my basement and am forced to use GitHub that's exactly against the spirit of open source

[colejohnson66]

You still can. You just use an API token with PyPI.

[aseipp]

Please improve your reading comprehension. I swear, this website is embarassing sometimes. You can still do this with an API Token. You can upload from a C64 with an API token. What you cannot do is run some random OIDC provider on your random useless domain and have PyPI magically respect it and include as part of the Trusted Publishers program. There is no point in it, because the program itself is constrained by design because it only provides any benefit at "large scale." Your random dumb server providing a login for you alone does not provide any benefits over you just using an API Token.

Any pathway to provide trusted attestations for random individual Hacker News users like yourself will, in fact, require a different design.

[guappa]

> error-prone cryptographic bits if they don't need to

They can't. Because you wouldn't accept their key anyway.

[woodruffw]

I think you're missing something. The key in question is a short-lived ECDSA key that lives inside a publishing workflow and is destroyed after signing; neither GitHub nor the Sigstore CA generates a signing key for you.

PyPI will accept any key bound to an identity, provided we know how to verify that identity. Right now that means we accept Trusted Publishing identities, and GitHub identities in particular, since that's where the overwhelming majority of Python package publishing traffic comes from. Like what happened Trusted Publishing, this will be expanded to other identities (like GitLab repositories) as we roll it out.

[guappa]

How does pypi know I'm not github? Because I can sign with my keys and not with github's key.

Never mind all the low level details of the temporary keys and hashes and all of that. This is an high level comment not a university book about security.