pkg: Move FreeBSD-base to pkg.freebsd.org

[cperciva]

Summary

Rather than fetching packages directly from the CDN which currently
backs pkgbase.freebsd.org, requests will go to pkg.freebsd.org mirrors
and be 302ed to the correct servers. This adds ~70 seconds to the
process of installing or upgrading a pkgbase system; it also orphans
systems with 15.0-{PRERELEASE,ALPHA*,BETA*} installed since they are
expecting to see pkgbase files signed with the pkg keys, not the new
pkgbase signing keys.

With hat: re
Requested by: clusteradm, core

[philip]

We could probably shave off several seconds for many people by replacing pkg+https with pkg+http. The TLS n-way handshake is a complete waste of time. I have made this observation about the other repositories as well but...

Windmills. Have to keep trying.

[bdrewery]

In D53964#1232996, @philip wrote:

We could probably shave off several seconds for many people by replacing pkg+https with pkg+http. The TLS n-way handshake is a complete waste of time. I have made this observation about the other repositories as well but...

Windmills. Have to keep trying.

Agreed. All https buys us here is quieting an FAQ. It otherwise adds time and potentially has problems in some corporate setups.

[cperciva]

In D53964#1233037, @bdrewery wrote:

In D53964#1232996, @philip wrote:

We could probably shave off several seconds for many people by replacing pkg+https with pkg+http. The TLS n-way handshake is a complete waste of time. I have made this observation about the other repositories as well but...

Windmills. Have to keep trying.

Agreed. All https buys us here is quieting an FAQ. It otherwise adds time and potentially has problems in some corporate setups.

It does provide a little bit of protection against rollback attacks. Not much, though; there's a reason I used HTTP for freebsd-update.

The main reason I used HTTPS here was because that's what the other repositories used and I wanted to minimize the number of bikesheds I had to paint.

[bdrewery]

In D53964#1233038, @cperciva wrote:

In D53964#1233037, @bdrewery wrote:

In D53964#1232996, @philip wrote:

We could probably shave off several seconds for many people by replacing pkg+https with pkg+http. The TLS n-way handshake is a complete waste of time. I have made this observation about the other repositories as well but...

Windmills. Have to keep trying.

Agreed. All https buys us here is quieting an FAQ. It otherwise adds time and potentially has problems in some corporate setups.

It does provide a little bit of protection against rollback attacks. Not much, though; there's a reason I used HTTP for freebsd-update.

The main reason I used HTTPS here was because that's what the other repositories used and I wanted to minimize the number of bikesheds I had to paint.

Yup makes sense to go with what's there already.

The rollback attack is interesting, I had not considered that one.

[philip]

In D53964#1233038, @cperciva wrote:

In D53964#1233037, @bdrewery wrote:

In D53964#1232996, @philip wrote:

We could probably shave off several seconds for many people by replacing pkg+https with pkg+http. The TLS n-way handshake is a complete waste of time. I have made this observation about the other repositories as well but...

Windmills. Have to keep trying.

Agreed. All https buys us here is quieting an FAQ. It otherwise adds time and potentially has problems in some corporate setups.

It does provide a little bit of protection against rollback attacks. Not much, though; there's a reason I used HTTP for freebsd-update.

We already protect against those with DNSSEC. You should not be able to resolve an impersonated pkg.FreeBSD.org in a properly configured network. I'm all in favour of defence in depth but the additional security here is so marginal as to be imperceptible and the downsides of HTTPS are many.

The main reason I used HTTPS here was because that's what the other repositories used and I wanted to minimize the number of bikesheds I had to paint.

I can respect that. :)

And, realistically, I don't expect us to be able to revert to HTTP in the short term. The HTTPS-only lobby supported by the WebPKI cartel has comprehensively bullied an entire generation into believing that HTTP cannot be cleartext under any circumstances.

(Meanwhile, I have regulatory requirements banning encryption in some environments I support.)

But we are drifting away from the topic at hand. Sorry for bringing this up. :)

[imp]

Dnssec just ensures the ip addr is legit. Https ensures the identity of who you are talking to as well as doing crypto.... we also independently sign the pkg, true. But the more barriers to spoofing the better.