Because it’s kind of hard! Even if I follow their instructions. Maybe I’m just dumb . . . 🙁

  • kekmacska@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    14 hours ago

    If it is hard, it is usually unnecessary. Unless it is a critical software (like a firmware update), or you suspect that somebody manipilates your traffic (which is highly unlikely on https sites)

    • ShortN0te@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Not necessarily traffic. Often download sites use mirrors to serve you the download. Sometimes those links are provided via a CDN which can be forced to comply to LEA or some other static hosted mirrors which are often hosted by others. The second part is more likely on community managed software.

      So either traffic or the server/CDN behind the link. Happened before.

  • Xanza@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Signature verification protects you against malicious actors. Generally its not critical, but if you’re worried about the source you’re getting software from, then I highly recommend that you verify the signature. Ideally, you’re given an asc file with the distribution and assuming you have PGP installed (and have a key), it’s pretty easy.

    First you want to import the public key they are saying that they use to sign all of their distributions;

    gpg --auto-key-locate nodefault,wkd --locate-keys torbrowser@torproject.org
    

    Once it’s in your keyring, you sign it with your own key;

    gpg --sign-key torbrowser@torproject.org
    

    This is you telling the keyring that you trust this exact signing key, so now when you verify anything using that signing key (no matter where you get it from) you’ll get a little message saying “hey, we know who this is, this is probably safe!”;

    $ gpg --verify mullvad-browser-linux-x86_64-13.0.4.tar.xz.asc
    gpg: assuming signed data in 'mullvad-browser-linux-x86_64-13.0.4.tar.xz'
    gpg: Signature made Thu Nov 23 11:24:40 2023 CET
    gpg:                using RSA key 613188FC5BE2176E3ED54901E53D989A9E2D47BF
    gpg: Good signature from "Tor Browser Developers (signing key) <torbrowser@torproject.org>" [full]
    

    In all reality, signing archives like this isn’t really necessary anymore. In the early days of the internet when resources were scarce and web-servers didn’t have 100% uptime, people mainly got software from FTP servers that weren’t up all the time. So you have to search and hunt for software and sometimes get it from random places. This was a way for you to ensure that even though you didn’t get it from an official source, that the software you were about to put on your machine wasn’t messed with.

    These days you’re gonna get it directly from Mullvad–but even so, using signing keys protects you from MITM attacks, so that’s always cool. lol.

    • Alas Poor Erinaceus@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Thank you for taking the time to write all that! I did do what you described, but the RSA key I got at the end was different from what Mullvad’s webpage says, which is the same as what you put, I think: 6131 . . . etc.

      • Xanza@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Good signature from "Tor Browser Developers (signing key) <torbrowser@torproject.org>" [full]

        Did you see this notification at all when you verified the key signature?

        • Alas Poor Erinaceus@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Yes, I got:

          Good signature from "Tor Browser Developers (signing key) <torbrowser@torproject.org>" [full]

          Does that mean it’s ok? Maybe Mullvad just needs to update their website?

  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    21 hours ago

    Depending on your threat model, not very important. What are the chances that 1) someone will have hacked Mullvad’s server and installed a compromised version of the browser, and 2) you happen to download the compromised version before the hack is discovered and mitigated? Also, the signature and the package appear to be on the same server, so what’s necessarily going to stop the hacker from updating the signature to match their hacked package? [Edit: It’s a GPG signature, not a simple hash signature, so I guess that’s so not trivial after all.]

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Right. The risk is low, but nonzero.

      You’ll want to make sure that the key you’re validating is provided through another trusted channel, so that an attacker can’t provide a bad download and have you check it against their bad key too.

    • Alas Poor Erinaceus@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      That’s kind of what I figured, although after following Mullvad Browser’s instructions for verification, I did get two different RSA keys, if that means anything . . .

  • N.E.P.T.R
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    22 hours ago

    It is important if you care. They sign releases with the same Tor Browser key. Instructions are found on this page: https://mullvad.net/en/help/verifying-mullvad-browser-signature

    You need 2 files (both are on the download page):

    • Browser file
    • Signature file

    The basic process is as follows:

    1. Obtain signing key.
    2. Verify browser using signature file.

    Note: Ignore warning about the key not being signed with a trusted key (we skip an unnecessary step for a begineer walkthrough)

    You can double check everything I said by looking at their instructions.