I am a research programmer at the NYU School of Engineering. My colleagues
(Trishank Kuppusamy and Justin Cappos) and I are requesting community
feedback on our proposal, "Surviving a Compromise of PyPI." The two-stage
proposal can be reviewed online at:
Summary of the Proposal:
"Surviving a Compromise of PyPI" proposes how the Python Package Index
(PyPI) can be amended to better protect end users from altered or malicious
packages, and to minimize the extent of PyPI compromises against affected
users. The proposed integration allows package managers such as pip to be
more secure against various types of security attacks on PyPI and defend
end users from attackers responding to package requests. Specifically,
these PEPs describe how PyPI processes should be adapted to generate and
incorporate repository metadata, which are signed text files that describe
the packages and metadata available on PyPI. Package managers request
(along with the packages) the metadata on PyPI to verify the authenticity
of packages before they are installed. The changes to PyPI and tools will
be minimal by leveraging a library, The Update Framework
<https://github.com/theupdateframework/tuf>, that generates and
transparently validates the relevant metadata.
The first stage of the proposal (PEP 458
<http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0458/>) uses a basic security model
that supports verification of PyPI packages signed with cryptographic keys
stored on PyPI, requires no action from developers and end users, and
protects against malicious CDNs and public mirrors. To support continuous
delivery of uploaded packages, PyPI administrators sign for uploaded
packages with an online key stored on PyPI infrastructure. This level of
security prevents packages from being accidentally or deliberately tampered
with by a mirror or a CDN because the mirror or CDN will not have any of
the keys required to sign for projects.
The second stage of the proposal (PEP 480
<http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0480/>) is an extension to the basic
security model (discussed in PEP 458) that supports end-to-end verification
of signed packages. End-to-end signing allows both PyPI and developers to
sign for the packages that are downloaded by end users. If the PyPI
infrastructure were to be compromised, attackers would be unable to serve
malicious versions of these packages without access to the project's
developer key. As in PEP 458, no additional action is required by end
users. However, PyPI administrators will need to periodically (perhaps
every few months) sign metadata with an offline key. PEP 480 also proposes
an easy-to-use key management solution for developers, how to interface
with a potential build farm on PyPI infrastructure, and discusses the
security benefits of end-to-end signing. The second stage of the proposal
simultaneously supports real-time project registration and developer
signatures, and when configured to maximize security on PyPI, less than 1%
of end users will be at risk even if an attacker controls PyPI and goes
undetected for a month.
We thank Nick Coghlan and Donald Stufft for their valuable contributions,
and Giovanni Bajo and Anatoly Techtonik for their feedback.
PEP 458 & 480 authors.
As a new Twine maintainer I've been running into questions like:
* Now that Warehouse doesn't use "register" anymore, can we deprecate it from distutils, setuptools, and twine? Are any other package indexes or upload tools using it? https://github.com/pypa/twine/issues/311
* It would be nice if Twine could depend on a package index providing an HTTP 201 response in response to a successful upload, and fail on 200 (a response some non-package-index servers will give to an arbitrary POST request).
I do not see specifications to guide me here, e.g., in the official guidance on hosting one's own package index https://packaging.python.org/guides/hosting-your-own-index/ . PEP 301 was long enough ago that it's due an update, and PEP 503 only concerns browsing and download, not upload.
I suggest that I write a PEP specifying an API for uploading to a Python package index. This PEP would partially supersede PEP 301 and would document the Warehouse reference implementation. I would write it in collaboration with the Warehouse maintainers who will develop the reference implementation per pypa/warehouse/issues/284 and maybe add a header referring to compliance with this new standard. And I would consult with the maintainers of packaging and distribution tools such as zest.releaser, flit, poetry, devpi, pypiserver, etc.
Per Nick Coghlan's formulation, my specific goal here would be close to:
> Documenting what the current upload API between twine & warehouse actually is, similar to the way PEP 503 focused on describing the status quo, without making any changes to it. That way, other servers (like devpi) and other upload clients have the info they need to help ensure interoperability.
Since Warehouse is trying to redo its various APIs in the next several months, I think it might be more useful to document and work with the new upload API, but I'm open to feedback on this.
After a little conversation here on distutils-sig, I believe my steps would be:
1. start a very early PEP draft with lots of To Be Determined blanks, submit as a PR to the python/peps repo, and share it with distutils-sig
2. ping maintainers of related tools
3. discuss with others at the packaging sprints https://wiki.python.org/psf/PackagingSprints next week
4. revise and get consensus, preferably mostly on this list
5. finalize PEP and get PEP accepted by BDFL-Delegate
6. coordinate with PyPA, maintainers of `distutils`, maintainers of packaging and distribution tools, and documentation maintainers to implement PEP compliance
Thoughts are welcome. I originally posted this at https://github.com/pypa/packaging-problems/issues/128 .
I'm making a python package for something python Gedit/Pluma/Xed plugin.
Like other lots of other packages that use Gtk, I use glib-compile-schemas  at install time.
I do this by using a custom setup.py- similar to this file this from flux:
https://github.com/xflux-gui/fluxgui/blob/master/setup.py#L81(other app, like Meld to something similar)
It looks like there are a lot of changes happening to setuptools, will this continue to work or will it break one day ?
This isn't the only file I'd like to generate at install time, but might be the hardest to work around if I can't.
The other custom action I'm going looking at is setting `--install-lib` to the editors plugin directory (this varies depending on: Operating system and is the user root ?)
I'm using use pip for this, as the install story for most python plugins for these editors is nonexistant - people have to copy the files to some place manually, and instructions usually miss out Windows and OSX.
 glib-compile-schemas takes an XML file and generates a binary GVariant file.
To quote the blog post
> To further increase the security of Python package downloads, we're adding a new beta feature to the Python Package Index: WebAuthn support for U2F compatible hardware security keys as a two-factor authentication (2FA) login security method. This is thanks to a grant from the Open Technology Fund, coordinated by the Packaging Working Group of the Python Software Foundation.
We need your help testing this while it's in beta:
https://wiki.python.org/psf/WarehousePackageMaintainerTesting Later this
week I'll publicize it to some more communities, and then in maybe 10
days, assuming we can quickly fix all the urgent bugs we find, we'll
remove the "beta" badge.
During this testing period, if things go awry, there's a chance we will
need to wipe tokens from users' accounts, so if you choose to try it,
please be forewarned. That's why you have to have a PyPI-verified email
address on your user account before trying the feature, to make
potential account recovery smoother.
Thanks to the Open Technology Fund for funding this work. More progress
reports at the Packaging Working Group's wiki page:
I've developed a small C library and a much larger Python native
extension that uses that library. The native extension has no
dependencies other than that small C library.
While the library is useful on its own, I'm thinking it would be good to
include the library's source directly with my native extension's source
when I upload to PyPI, so that it can be easily built for arbitrary
platforms without me having to create wheels for them.
Is this a known approach? Have people done this before?
For reference, the C library, which currently builds with autotools, is
And the Python library and native extension, which currently builds with
setuptools and uses cffi, is here:
Thanks for any guidance!
A few folks will be getting together on Saturday and doing a short
in-person sprint on some Python packaging & distribution tools, around
10am-4pm ET, at a coworking space/lounge in New York City.
A few packaging/distribution folks, e.g., a Twine contributor, a pip bug
fixer/triager, and a Warehouse maintainer (me), are confirmed as coming.
I figure we'll review some open pull requests, triage bugs to find ones
we can close as no longer reproducible, and explain stuff to each other.
I think we've already run out of space for who can participate in
person, but please feel free to hang out and chat with us via IRC! I'll
be on Freenode IRC (#pypa-dev) as user "sumanah". And that way logs of
our conversations will also be available at
(If you have never contributed to Python packaging/distribution tools
before, and you want to start, this is probably not the best event for
you; let me know, and I'll set up a more introductory event in the future.)
Warehouse project manager
Seems like most of the pip bugmail I get now is lockbot messages
telling me that a bug that hasn't received any discussion for a long
time now can't have any more discussion. Is that really needed? The
github UI shows the lock status of bugs itself...