Documented local and server-side signing best practices #7
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Great explanation, thanks! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hopefully addresses the concerns raised in #5. I would submit that the ideal CI best practice is to AES encrypt the ASCII-armored passwordless private key. AES-256 with a non-default IV is going to be better encryption that GPG's password-protection anyway, and most CI servers are going to have built-in support for securely managing encrypted files (if your CI server doesn't support this, it's bad and you shouldn't use it). This best practice is what I have documented in the README, as well as adding a note explicitly calling out how the defaults are secure and precisely what you want for the publish-from-laptop strategy.