/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2024/12/06/#ubuntu-security.txt

tomreyni'm following bug 1464064, which changed status to 'fix released' today. i understand this as "future releases will default to HTTPS for all default apt archives", and, as a dependency of this, availability of all default apt repositories supporting HTTPS. that's awesome. :)15:55
-ubottu:#ubuntu-security- Bug 1464064 in Ubuntu "Ubuntu apt repos are not available via HTTPS" [Undecided, Fix Released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/146406415:55
tomreyni have a questions baout this, however. so far i understood that security.ubuntu.com served as a special archive mirror in that it provides faster access to security fixes than the main archive mirrors do. now when i compare https://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/plucky-security/ to https://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/plucky-security/ they seem to provide exactly the same. so i'm wondering: does security.ubuntu.com still provide 15:58
tomreynsecurity updates faster than the normal archive mirrors, or are security updates now provided by normal archive mirrors at the same time?15:58
tomreyn(or is it something else?)15:59
mdeslaurI don't have any details on why that bug was closed, but I assume it's only for the main archive and the security. repo, but not for mirrors, which means it's unlikely to be https in a default install15:59
mdeslaursecurity.u.c comes preconfigured so that a mirror that has a delay in syncing doesn't prevent someone from getting important security updates16:00
mdeslaursecurity.u.c is directly hosted on canonical infrastructure16:00
mdeslaurin theory, a mirror that is syncing properly will get all the security updates in a timely fashion16:01
tomreynsecurity.ubuntu.com and archive.ubuntu.com resolve to the same ip addresses for me. i'm not sure whether or not this contradicts your statement "security.u.c is directly hosted on canonical infrastructure"16:02
mdeslaurarchive.ubuntu.com is also hosted by canonical16:04
mdeslaurthe mirrors are subdomains of that, for example ca.archive.ubuntu.com16:04
mdeslaurlooks like ca.archive.ubuntu is a bad example :)16:05
mdeslaurbut it.archive.ubuntu.com is an example16:05
tomreyni know what you mean, though, some of the country mirrors will point to non canonical maintained mirror servers.16:05
sdezieltomreyn: Last I checked `archive.ubuntu.com` was pointed at the UK primary mirror but it was also redirected to the US one (those are 2 primary mirrors I know of) a while back when the UK had issues.16:05
sdezielfrom past experiences, `security.ubuntu.com` get fixes a tad earlier than `us.archive.ubuntu.com` does16:07
mdeslaursdeziel: they both resolve to the same ips now, so that's probably not the case anymore16:08
mdeslauroh wait, I read that wrong16:09
mdeslauryes, it's plausible that security.u.c gets updates a bit faster16:09
mdeslaurhrm16:10
sdezielcould it be that security fixes first land in -security and then are copied to -updates?16:10
sdezielas for the DNS, it seems that `security.ubuntu.com` now resolves to both set of IPs so UK/GB and US, that's probably more resilient now :)16:11
mdeslaurso it does look like security.u.c and archive.u.c do resolve to the same ips now16:11
mdeslaurin a default install, a country-specific mirror is usually configured, along with security.u.c16:12
sdezielhmm, from here, `security.ubuntu.com` resolves to the superset of `gb.archive.ubuntu.com` and `us.archive.ubuntu.com` so 6 IPs total16:12
mdeslaurcountry specific mirrors may or may not be canonical hosted and the same as archive.u.c16:12
mdeslaurso in cases where the country specific mirror isn't canonical hosted, security.u.c is important so that security updates are obtained even if the mirror is behind in syncing16:13
sdezielyep16:13
mdeslaursdeziel: yeah, same here, s.u.c and a.u.c have 6 ips, 3 from us. and 3 from uk16:13
sdezielI am quite happy with the change as-is, even if that may or may not be something enabled by default in the future16:14
mdeslauryes, at least it's easy now to opt-in to it16:14
mdeslaurthe mirrors were always the major issue16:15
tomreynthanks for the discussion, mdeslaur and sdeziel. so i think what remains to be understood is: why was bug 1464064 marked as "fix released" when the bug is about (my, much simplified, interpretation - open to discussion) "new installations should always use apt repositories using httpS and still get fast security updates"17:09
-ubottu:#ubuntu-security- Bug 1464064 in Ubuntu "Ubuntu apt repos are not available via HTTPS" [Undecided, Fix Released] https://launchpad.net/bugs/146406417:09
tomreyni guess another way to read the bug report is "apt archive mirrors us.archive.ubuntu.com and security.ubuntu.com should support HTTPS", which is a very different interpretation, and - i think - not what the original report (nor most of the contributors) seemed to intend.17:11
tomreyni think the first interpretation is what is the revolution that people are seeking, and the second interpretation is maybe what the current state is.17:12
tomreyn(and, to explain this as well, i'm discussing this here for the potential time-to-patch security impact)17:13
tomreynI just posted this to the bug report as well (spelling out potential interpretation 1 more).17:29
mdeslauryeah, I think commenting in the bug is the best thing to do, thanks17:47
oerheksapt-transport-https  is optional, and one needs ca-certificates too to make it work17:58
tomreynapt-transport-https is a transitional package because this functionality (HTTPS support) has been implemented in core apt years ago.17:59
oerheksoh oke, the ca-certificates is the culprit?18:00
tomreyni don't think ca-certificates is an issue. ca-certificates is a core package, installed by default since forever.18:04

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!