attestation VS git-secret

It's multi-pronged and I imagine adopters may use a subset of features. Broadly, I think folks are going to be interested in a) branch/tag/reference protection rules, b) file protection rules (monorepo or otherwise, though monorepos do pose a very apt usecase for gittuf), and c) general key management for those who primarily care about Git signing.

For those who care about a and b, I think the work we want to do to support [in-toto attestations](https://github.com/in-toto/attestation) for [SLSA's upcoming source track](https://github.com/slsa-framework/slsa/issues/956) could be very interesting as well.

I have. I actually worked a few desks down from dpc when he was creating it and we talked about it at length. I felt then and now that it has good goals but a very limiting implementation in that it does not pursue a portable spec and instead anchors a very opinionated format to git, and github, instead of cryptographic keys held in hardware owned controlled by reviewers. I want to see the same keys that sign git commits also sign reviews, for instance.

I think for broad adoption a review system should ask essentially the same questions as crev, but store them in a format like in-toto including signatures by the reviewers created with a user choice of pgp smartcards, ssh keys, or webauthn devices. These reviews would be anchored to hashes of a particular state of a particular tree of code and not to any type of VCS or distribution system. Important code is distributed via Perforce, mercurial subversion, and tar files depending if we are talking about big corps, or linux distro building blocks. A good OSS review system should be also be usable by teams in their internal proprietary codebases too if we wish to see wide adoption. Even for OSS we may wish to share some reviews as standalone objects privately while security embargos are in place, etc. Proofs should also be verified standalone easily from local cache, when github is down, when original repos vanish, etc.

Something that meets these broader needs will make it easy for large orgs with very different internal setups to participate and play nice with other supply chain efforts by the OpenSSF using in-toto for reproducible builds, etc.

My experience tells me we need something much more ambitious than crev, but crev proved to me many people have real interest in this problem which I really thank dpc for.

The biggest blocker for starting this project is the human review spec settling in in-toto https://github.com/in-toto/attestation/issues/77

I've happily been using git-secret (https://sobolevn.me/git-secret/) for encrypting non-critical (i.e. non-production) secrets for a while now. It sounds like Gittuf will do a lot more than git-secret, but for the use case of encrypted files specifically, is there a significant different about with the approach that Gittuf has taken?

Secrets inside the repo. All the credentials, ssh keys, VPN configs can be stored directly in the repo with support of the git secret. gpg key is optional: config works fine if it is not provided and secrets are not decrypted.

You might notice that some of the environmental variables have funky values that look more like template placeholders. For example "SESSION_STORAGE_SECRET=${SESSION_STORAGE_SECRET}". That's because there's a .env file that contains those (you can see it in the root of the GitHub repository page. As a good practice I try to isolate anything that needs to be secret right off the top. So even though this is a development setup and would need work to turn it into a something suitable for production let's try to start off right not doing the wrong thing by hardcoding all our secrets into various files. At least now there's just one file to secure. And later on if you move to something really secure like Hashicorp's Vault product, or even something open source like git secret you won't have to hunt all over the place for the secrets to keep. Lets now look at the rest of the Catalyst application setup:

Checkout git-secret. https://git-secret.io/

There‘s plugins like https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt or https://git-secret.io that you can use to encrypt the files for yourself, so that they are available on multiple machines to you

If you really want to have private repositories in GitHub, you will need to set up something like https://git-secret.io on top of git.

If you want a low config solution and not scared of gpg, https://git-secret.io/

Hey guys, so I'm using git-secret as of now. Just stumbled across Mozilla SOPS today and finding it interesting. Which one you guys recommend and why? Advantages and disadvantages of each? I think SOPS is more robust and stable since it is being maintained by a large organization? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Help is appreciated.