Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

lib25519.cr.yp.to

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

#51

Post by XorNot »

adastra22 wrote: post #49
XorNot wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as? I need an alternative which supports commutative trust relationships of some sort which are revocable.

You (knowingly?) picked the one counter example, lol. Web of trust is the one application of PGP/GPG for which there isn’t a product ready replacement tool to point towards. GPG is built around web of trust, but this is generally believed to have been a very, very bad idea and the source of innumerable security problems for nearly every application that has tried to make use of it. The GPG replacements I would point…

No I picked the case I'm dealing with most commonly: which is establishing trust. X509 certs will also do this.

I have numerous criticisms of the GPG system but it's not a solution to just not implement any solution at all: I.e. I need revocation lists, I need intermediate keys, I need the ability to establish alternate chains of trust or promote a chain to trusted. Some of this is very hard to do with x509 even or not will supported.

Re: Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

#52

Post by gnull »

minitech wrote: post #44
gnull wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's such a user-hostile design decision. I can't fathom what justifies it (other than kinky taste). Makes your commands unreadable without a manual, leaves a lot of room for errors that are quietly ignored. And forces you into using a shell that comes with its own set of gotchas, bash is not known to be a particularly good tool for security. And to those who stay this adds flexibility: it doesn't. Those file descr…

> Those file descriptors are available under/dev/fd on linux, with named options you can do --pk /dev/fd/5. If you have a procfs mounted at /proc and the open syscall to use on it, sure (and even then, it’s wasteful and adds unnecessary failure paths). Even argument parsing is yet more code to audit. I think the design is pretty good as-is.

It's 2025, dude. You can't be seriously telling me how difficult it is to parse arguments. It may be difficult in C, but then we're down another sick rabbit hole of justifying bad interface with bad language choice.

One open syscall in addition to dozens already made before your main function is started will have no observable effect whatsoever.

Re: Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

#53

Post by minitech »

gnull wrote: post #52
minitech wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those file descriptors are available under/dev/fd on linux, with named options you can do --pk /dev/fd/5. If you have a procfs mounted at /proc and the open syscall to use on it, sure (and even then, it’s wasteful and adds unnecessary failure paths). Even argument parsing is yet more code to audit. I think the design is pretty good as-is.

It's 2025, dude. You can't be seriously telling me how difficult it is to parse arguments. It may be difficult in C, but then we're down another sick rabbit hole of justifying bad interface with bad language choice. One open syscall in addition to dozens already made before your main function is started will have no observable effect whatsoever.

The context is what’s essentially a shell-accessible library for a minimal set of cryptographic primitives. It’s very reasonable to want it to be as lightweight, portable, and easy to audit as possible, and to want it to run in environments where (continuing on Linux for example) the open syscall to /dev/fd/n -> /proc/self/fd/n will not succeed for whatever reason, e.g. a restrictive sandbox.

Not involving argument parsing simplifies the interface regardless of how easy the implementation is, and the cost is just having to look up a digit in a manual that I certainly hope anyone doing raw ed25519 in shell is reading anyway.

Re: Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

#54

Post by adastra22 »

XorNot wrote: post #51
adastra22 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You (knowingly?) picked the one counter example, lol. Web of trust is the one application of PGP/GPG for which there isn’t a product ready replacement tool to point towards. GPG is built around web of trust, but this is generally believed to have been a very, very bad idea and the source of innumerable security problems for nearly every application that has tried to make use of it. The GPG replacements I would point…

No I picked the case I'm dealing with most commonly: which is establishing trust. X509 certs will also do this. I have numerous criticisms of the GPG system but it's not a solution to just not implement any solution at all: I.e. I need revocation lists, I need intermediate keys, I need the ability to establish alternate chains of trust or promote a chain to trusted. Some of this is very hard to do with x509 even or n…

Trust meaning who you should do business with? Whose advice you should take?

Rather than “trust” you mean something very specific: whether a key was issued by an entity, or attested to from a set of authorities. The “web of trust” model that PGP/GPG supports is not the ideal means of implementing this.

Re: Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

#55

Post by gnull »

minitech wrote: post #53
gnull wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 2025, dude. You can't be seriously telling me how difficult it is to parse arguments. It may be difficult in C, but then we're down another sick rabbit hole of justifying bad interface with bad language choice. One open syscall in addition to dozens already made before your main function is started will have no observable effect whatsoever.

The context is what’s essentially a shell-accessible library for a minimal set of cryptographic primitives. It’s very reasonable to want it to be as lightweight, portable, and easy to audit as possible, and to want it to run in environments where (continuing on Linux for example) the open syscall to /dev/fd/n -> /proc/self/fd/n will not succeed for whatever reason, e.g. a restrictive sandbox. Not involving argument p…

Make a named pipe then. Shells have built-in primitives for that. I.e. () subshells in bash, or psub in fish. Or have an option to read either a file descriptor or a file.

I can't understand why you keep inflating the difficulty of simple commandline parsing, which the tool needs to do anyway — we shouldn't even be talking about it. Commandline parsing code is done once (and read once per audit) while a hostile user interface that bad commandline creates takes effort to use each time someone invokes the tool. If the tool has 1000 users, then bad interface's overhead has 1000× weight when we measure it against the overhead of implementing commandline parsing. This is preposterous.

> Not involving argument parsing simplifies the interface

From interface perspective, how is `5>secretkey` simpler than `--sk secretkey`? The latter is descriptive, searchable and allows bash completion. I'll type `ed25519-keypair`, hit tab and recall what the argument called.

You can't justify poorly made interface that is unusable without opening the manual side by side. Moreover, the simplest shell scripts that call this tool are unreadable (and thus unauditable) without the the manual.

  ed25519-keypair 5>secretkey 9>publickey
You see this line in a shell script. What does it do? Even before asking some deeper crypto-specific questions, you need to know what's written in "secretkey" and "publickey" files. You will end up spending your time (even a minute) and context-switch to check the descriptor numbers instead of doing something actually useful.

Re: Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

#56

Post by minitech »

gnull wrote: post #55
minitech wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is what’s essentially a shell-accessible library for a minimal set of cryptographic primitives. It’s very reasonable to want it to be as lightweight, portable, and easy to audit as possible, and to want it to run in environments where (continuing on Linux for example) the open syscall to /dev/fd/n -> /proc/self/fd/n will not succeed for whatever reason, e.g. a restrictive sandbox. Not involving argument p…

Make a named pipe then. Shells have built-in primitives for that. I.e. () subshells in bash, or psub in fish. Or have an option to read either a file descriptor or a file. I can't understand why you keep inflating the difficulty of simple commandline parsing, which the tool needs to do anyway — we shouldn't even be talking about it. Commandline parsing code is done once (and read once per audit) while a hostile user…

> which the tool needs to do anyway

It doesn’t. The tool has no command-line arguments.

Please learn how the various shell concepts you’re referencing (like In any case, I’m well aware of the readability benefit of named arguments, and was when I made the original comment. So as you can imagine, I maintain that it’s a more than reasonable tradeoff, and I’ve covered the reasons for that. If you have nothing (correct) to add beyond hammering on this point, save it.

Re: Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

#57

Post by gnull »

minitech wrote: post #56
gnull wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make a named pipe then. Shells have built-in primitives for that. I.e. () subshells in bash, or psub in fish. Or have an option to read either a file descriptor or a file. I can't understand why you keep inflating the difficulty of simple commandline parsing, which the tool needs to do anyway — we shouldn't even be talking about it. Commandline parsing code is done once (and read once per audit) while a hostile user…

> which the tool needs to do anyway It doesn’t. The tool has no command-line arguments. Please learn how the various shell concepts you’re referencing (like In any case, I’m well aware of the readability benefit of named arguments, and was when I made the original comment. So as you can imagine, I maintain that it’s a more than reasonable tradeoff, and I’ve covered the reasons for that. If you have nothing (correct)…

You got me, it doesn't have arguments. Luckily, my argument did not critically rely on this bit, and it's still valid. Instead of occasional disconnected thoughts and vulgar attempts to insult, try to construct a complete, coherent argument for why you think your view is valid.

A suggestion on how you could approach it: try to make a table with 2-3 columns for the solutions you and I are comparing. And add a row for each aspect or characteristic you want to compare them with respect to; for example, usability, ease of implementation, room for error, you name it. In each cell, put either + or - if a solution is clearly managing that aspect well or badly, or a detailed comment. Try to express all of the things you're feeling and that are coming to your mind. My comments are written with a table like that in mind, they easily translate to one. Once you have made your table and established that we disagree on what some cell should contain or what rows/columns should be present, feel free to get back to have an actual discussion.

Re: Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

#58

Post by minitech »

gnull wrote: post #57
minitech wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which the tool needs to do anyway It doesn’t. The tool has no command-line arguments. Please learn how the various shell concepts you’re referencing (like In any case, I’m well aware of the readability benefit of named arguments, and was when I made the original comment. So as you can imagine, I maintain that it’s a more than reasonable tradeoff, and I’ve covered the reasons for that. If you have nothing (correct)…

You got me, it doesn't have arguments. Luckily, my argument did not critically rely on this bit, and it's still valid. Instead of occasional disconnected thoughts and vulgar attempts to insult, try to construct a complete, coherent argument for why you think your view is valid. A suggestion on how you could approach it: try to make a table with 2-3 columns for the solutions you and I are comparing. And add a row for…

You’ve misrepresented or ignored all of my arguments, which are fairly complete as written. You can reformat them into a table for your personal use if it helps; I haven’t seen evidence that continuing into “an actual discussion” with you on this would have any value. (“It's 2025, dude. You can't be seriously telling me how difficult it is to parse arguments.” was a bad start, and while I’m on it: wrong and right, respectively.)

Re: Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

#59

Post by gnull »

minitech wrote: post #58
gnull wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got me, it doesn't have arguments. Luckily, my argument did not critically rely on this bit, and it's still valid. Instead of occasional disconnected thoughts and vulgar attempts to insult, try to construct a complete, coherent argument for why you think your view is valid. A suggestion on how you could approach it: try to make a table with 2-3 columns for the solutions you and I are comparing. And add a row for…

You’ve misrepresented or ignored all of my arguments, which are fairly complete as written. You can reformat them into a table for your personal use if it helps; I haven’t seen evidence that continuing into “an actual discussion” with you on this would have any value. ( “It's 2025, dude. You can't be seriously telling me how difficult it is to parse arguments.” was a bad start, and while I’m on it: wrong and right, r…

Haha, you got me again!

I honestly tried putting yours into a table and couldn't in a way that makes it look defensible. About 2025: I generally find a bit of cheeky tone appropriate for a dramatic effect, apologies if I offended you.

Re: Ed25519-CLI – command-line interface for the Ed25519 signature system (2024)

#60

Post by minitech »

gnull wrote: post #55
minitech wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The context is what’s essentially a shell-accessible library for a minimal set of cryptographic primitives. It’s very reasonable to want it to be as lightweight, portable, and easy to audit as possible, and to want it to run in environments where (continuing on Linux for example) the open syscall to /dev/fd/n -> /proc/self/fd/n will not succeed for whatever reason, e.g. a restrictive sandbox. Not involving argument p…

Make a named pipe then. Shells have built-in primitives for that. I.e. () subshells in bash, or psub in fish. Or have an option to read either a file descriptor or a file. I can't understand why you keep inflating the difficulty of simple commandline parsing, which the tool needs to do anyway — we shouldn't even be talking about it. Commandline parsing code is done once (and read once per audit) while a hostile user…

(nicer reply to this)

Yes, I’m aware of the readability benefit of named arguments, and made the original comment with that awareness too.

> Make a named pipe then. Shells have built-in primitives for that. I.e. () subshells in bash,

That’s /proc/self/fd again. But okay, you can make a named pipe to trade the procfs mount and corresponding open-for-read permission requirement for a named pipe open-for-write permission requirement without receiving the other benefits I listed of just passing a FD directly.

> I can't understand why you keep inflating the difficulty of simple commandline parsing

Not only have I not “kept inflating” this, I barely brought up the related concept of it being unnecessary complexity from an implementation side (which it is).

> which the tool needs to do anyway

It doesn’t. The tool has no command-line arguments.

> From interface perspective, how is `5>secretkey` simpler than `--sk secretkey`? The latter is descriptive, searchable and allows bash completion. I'll type `ed25519-keypair`, hit tab and recall what the argument called.

Not introducing More Than One Way To Do It after all (“Or have an option to read either a file descriptor or a file”) here is a good start, but it’s hard to beat passing a file descriptor for simplicity. If the program operates on a stream, the simplest interface passes the program a stream. (This program actually operates on something even simpler than a stream – a byte string – but Unix-likes, and shells especially, are terrible at passing those. And an FD isn’t just a stream, but the point is it’s closer.) A file path is another degree or more removed from that, and it’s up to the program if/how it’ll open that file path, or even how it’ll derive a file path from the string (does `-` mean stdin to this tool? does it write multiple files with different suffixes? what permissions does it set if the file is a new file – will it overwrite an existing file? is this parameter an input or an output?).

Your attached arguments seem to be about convenience during interactive use, rather than the kind of simplicity I was referring to. (Bonus minor point: tab completion is not necessarily any different.)

> Moreover, the simplest shell scripts that call this tool are unreadable (and thus unauditable) without the the manual.

That might be a stretch. But more importantly, who’s trying to audit use of these tools without the manual? You can be more sure of the program’s interpretation of `--sk secretkey` (well, maybe rather `--secret-key=./secretkey`) than `9>` if you know it runs successfully, but for anything beyond that, you do need to know how the program is intended to work.

Finally, something I probably should have mentioned earlier: it’s very easy to wrap the existing implementation in a shell function to give it a named-parameter filepath-based interface if you want, but the reverse is impossible.

Post reply on HN