17:59:29 #startmeeting tor-browser 17:59:29 Meeting started Mon Apr 18 17:59:29 2016 UTC. The chair is GeKo. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 17:59:29 Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic. 17:59:41 hi everyone! 18:00:05 i guess we start with the usual status updates. who wnats to go first today? 18:00:12 *wants even 18:00:47 i can start this time i guess 18:01:13 this week i worked on the OS X signing and it seems our code-signing is working now 18:01:36 #18820 is left and i currently have no clue how to solve that efficiently 18:01:48 ideas are very welcome! 18:02:12 there is one caveat: timestamping is not working as our signing box is locked down 18:02:31 this was already a pain in the ass wrt the windows bundles 18:02:43 but i guess this time it will even be more fun to get right 18:03:11 but this is no blocker for now; definitely not for the alphas 18:03:36 then i worked on getting our esr45 branch into shape: tor-browser-45.0.2esr-6.x-1 should be it 18:03:59 thanks for everybody who has been helping with #15197 and friends 18:04:06 *thanks to 18:04:27 then i worked a bit on the OTF proposal and had to deal with bug bounty stuff 18:05:07 i finished #13419 and #14970 18:05:33 the former is actually closing two affected bugs as well, so, yay! 18:05:53 and finally, i worked on the network audit issues 18:06:23 this week i'll continue to address all remaining issues there and do reviews + prepare releases i guess 18:06:33 that's it for now 18:07:15 * mcs will go next 18:07:24 Last week, Kathy and I filed tickets for the “stuff we should fix” items from #18546. 18:07:32 We worked on all of them (#18799, #18800, #18801, #18802). 18:07:42 #18800 still has status “Needs Information” but the other tickets are closed. 18:07:49 For #18800, we will probably just proceed and develop a patch that always uses 127.0.0.1 for the IP address (feedback is welcome). 18:07:56 We also rebased the patch for #18777 last week. 18:08:00 Last but not least, we reviewed a bunch of ESR45 fixes. 18:08:06 This week we will create a patch for #18800 and we will work on other ESR45 issues. 18:08:11 For example, we could start looking at #16673 if no one else is working on it. 18:08:17 That’s all for us. 18:08:32 looking at that one would be helpful, yes 18:08:37 OK 18:08:54 might be hard to get it isolated in time 18:09:13 so, we probably have to go the disabling road for now. but who knows :) 18:09:47 I just posted a disabling patch for #16673 because it was very simple 18:10:06 Ah, that’s good. 18:10:24 Is isolation going to be really hard or is it an unknown? 18:10:47 I haven't looked at the implementation yet. 18:10:51 (and maybe there are other things Kathy and I should work on this week instead) 18:10:52 OK 18:11:17 GeKo: Feel free to adjust our priorities as needed. 18:12:01 ok. tbb-6.0a5 looks not that bad. i guess feel free to look at the stuff taht you think is most severe and tagged with ff45-esr 18:12:06 I think alt-svcs only makes sense if we're going to enable all of http/2. and making sure the features that are enabled are safe and working properly probably takes higher priority. 18:12:18 like stuff you want to see geeting an alpha testing exposure 18:12:33 GeKo: Sounds good. 18:12:44 *getting even 18:13:19 mikeperry: good point 18:15:15 * amoghbl1 wonders if he can go next 18:15:24 * arthuredelstein will go after amoghbl1 18:15:47 OK, so as of last week, we got down a stable build of Orfox 18:16:16 n8fr8 is working on the security patches related to that that were brought up with the thread with the mozilla folk 18:16:56 Based on which ones he sees required for the present update we have scheduled, he will work on those and get something out quick 18:17:28 As for ESR45, I think we are going to have to wait until all the tbb patches land to work on it 18:18:21 amoghbl1: when you get to ESR45 (we should have an alpha out for it in the next week), you should keep an eye on #18546 FYI. there are some things there that may affect android. I will be updating it with more stuff this week, but all the remaining stuff is cross-platform (and low risk) 18:18:53 i think you can start with tor-browser-45.0.2esr-6.x-1 for testing purposes 18:19:36 we might add some android related patches coming from #18546 but the vast majority of our patches is already there 18:20:05 thanks for the pointer mikeperry. 18:20:22 And yes, I will be able to start testing once tor-browser-45.0.2esr-6.x-1 is out 18:21:01 I've mentioned a rebase work section in my GSoC proposal, but looks like we got that down last week, so I could use that time to work on things related to esr45 18:21:25 That's it from me! 18:23:24 * arthuredelstein can go now 18:23:29 Last week I worked on finishing up patches for #15197. 18:23:38 And I did some work on #18741. 18:23:50 It seems that there is some apparently redundant favicon code that I can comment out to get rid of the problem, but I'm trying to understand it more deeply. 18:24:12 I also worked on #16998 and #16326. I hope to post patches for these later this week. 18:24:38 do we need something for #16326? 18:24:50 or are we lucky here with the existing stuff we have? 18:25:09 It seems to be OK but I want to have a patch for our caching regression test. 18:25:22 ok 18:26:55 So this week I'll try to finish up those patches and if there is any more time, I'll take on any other needed tbb-6.0a5 ticket. 18:26:58 That's it for me 18:27:56 for the OTF proposal, do we have a clear set of options for more secure updater work? I am reluctant to list it given the somewhat uncertain state of getting Prop@227 into Tor and reliably performed by dirauth operators. That doesn't mean we can't do it, it just means it's risky to list as a deliverable 18:28:09 prop#227, even 18:29:39 oh, I guess it was implemented in tor-core. mised that :). still it will need scripts/plumbing/coordination with dirauth operators, and some tricky logic for deciding what to do if there are byzantine failures causing omissions of the hash url, etc 18:30:33 I could easily see a long and annoying "experimental" phase for such a thing. and if dir-auths decide to riot about the scripts being too sketchy or too much work or whatever, we'd be in trouble 18:30:45 yes, we could think about #13730 or #17216 18:30:50 do we have alternatives for it? 18:30:59 ah, ok 18:31:09 and i thought we should evaluate the things mentioned in leif's piece 18:31:56 so, my idea was having a throught analysis phase where we put all the ideas floating around on the table 18:32:20 and then we pick one that seems best to us at the moment and get that done 18:33:24 *thorough 18:33:25 Being smart about our options seems like a good idea. 18:33:59 We want to make sure we add value rather than make the updater less reliable somehow 18:34:06 (so secure it doesn’t work?) 18:34:40 exactly. there are a bunch of ideas available where i'd like exactly against which threats they are helping 18:35:02 bah, *to know exactly 18:35:10 we may be transitioning to a CDN for the packages themselves, so even that may require some security consideration 18:35:18 indeed 18:35:33 for example, the pings to get the new files + hashes should probably not come from that CDN, but a hiddenservice or separate pinned HTTPS cert 18:35:49 There are also some implementation tradeoffs because whatever we do will probably involve additional core browser patches. 18:36:01 so, ok. work will definitiely happen there anyway 18:36:10 yes 18:37:45 * boklm will give an update next 18:37:58 This past week I finished converting all Mozmill tests to Marionette (#16009) 18:37:59 This week I'm planning to work on #17895, #18597, #18845 18:38:10 I will also look at #18820 to see if I have some ideas on how to solve this 18:38:21 That's it for me. 18:39:21 re #17895: just getting nsis cross-compiled and used for our bundles would be enough for the alpha i think 18:39:34 ok 18:39:40 we can test the other stuff during build (hehe) and in the coming weeks 18:40:03 and thanks for stepping up 18:40:21 i should have delegated that one earlier i guess :( 18:40:49 it almost dropped from my radar but coderman came to the rescue 18:42:59 so, who is left? mikeperry? 18:43:03 ok, so this OTF proposal has a soft submission date of Wednesday. I am hoping to get everything on the TBB side in shape for GeKo by then, but both isabela and I are occupied with other stuff this week, so we probably will need the extra time. I am thinking we should circulate it among the team first, if we can, also, but time pressure may prevent that 18:45:47 other than that, I will be finishing the Firefox networking review. but like I said, the remaining stuff is all just the XPCOM usage of networking functions. low-risk. mostly only addons use that stuff 18:47:14 okay. is anyone else here for status updates? do we have discussion topics today? questions? 18:49:39 thanks everybody *baf* 18:49:43 #endmeeting