incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Symantec WS.Reputation.1 Errors: What we can do
Date Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:52:23 GMT
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Mar 2, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> Several testers have mentioned this anti-virus error when installing
>> the AOO 3.4 dev snapshot build.   This is not a virus.
>> "WS.Reputation" errors come from Symantec Antivirus based on their
>> "reputation-based" threat assessments.  Essentially, they evaluate
>> software that you are about to install according to a range of
>> factors, including how new the file is, how many other people have
>> installed it, whether the installer is digitally signed, etc.  It is
>> not just one factor, but a proprietary mix of weighted factors.
>>
>> We're probably getting penalized based on several of these factors.
>> Note that with the final AOO 3.4 release we'll be in the same
>> position, since that installer will also be new,etc.
>>
>> A few things we should consider doing:
>>
>> 1) Make sure the readme file and install instructions cover this case
>> and explain what the user should do, e.g. "Run anyways"
>>
>> 2) We can make a request to Symantec to "whitelist" our installer.
>> This takes a couple of weeks for them to process.  And we can';t start
>> this work in advance since they need the SHA-256 hash of our
>> installer:
>>
>> https://submit.symantec.com/whitelist/isv/
>>
>> 3) We could digitally sign our Windows installers.   Apache already
>> requires a detached signature.  But Symantec has no idea about these.
>> We need traditional Windows exe code signing.  This will help us with
>> Windows 8 as well.  So it is something we probably want to look into
>> at some point.
>
> This is likely to be a release requirement. Remember all artifacts in an Apache Release
must be signed and installers are artifacts. (This touches  your discussion on the other
thread about what is AOO, what is powered by, and what is "White Label")
>

Right.  But all that is required are *detached* signatures.  These are
fine for human verification, but they don't help in this case.

> I believe that signing process is being worked on elsewhere in the foundation in a way
that can make this an easy part of the release process. I've a little experience with signing
installers a few years ago, but I won't have many cycles for it for a few weeks. I'll look
in my ML archives and ask the question on the appropriate Incubator ML about our participation
in these tests.
>

With current approach, it is based on "web of trust". So Release
Manager, and other PMC members verify and sign.   But normal code
signing on Windows is more hierarchical, and based on a trusted root
CA, etc.  Is the plan to have each PMC have its own signing cert?  In
this case the IPMC?

-Rob

> Regards,
> Dave
>
>>
>> My recommendation:
>>
>> Plan on doing 1.  Do 2. as soon as we have a release.  Look into 3. for AOO 4.0.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rob
>

Mime
View raw message