Reproducible Builds: Reproducible Builds in August 2026
Welcome to the August 2026 report from the Reproducible Builds project!
In our reports, we try to outline the most important things that we have been up to over the past month. As a quick recap about what problem our project intends to solve, whilst anyone may inspect the source code of free software for malicious flaws, almost all software is distributed to end users as pre-compiled binaries. The motivation behind the reproducible builds effort is to ensure no flaws have been introduced during this compilation process by promising identical results are always generated from a given source, thus allowing multiple third-parties to come to a consensus on whether a build was compromised or not.
In this month s report, we cover:
- New updated SBOM specification from CISA.gov
- LWN on Bootstrappable builds at FOSSY 2026
- What s missing to have reproducible builds on PyPI?
- Distribution work
- Unreproducible builds under EROFS filesystem fixed
- Tool and documentation development
- Six new scholarly papers
- Patches
New updated SBOM specification from CISA.gov
CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of the U.S. government published some the joint guidance entitled Minimum Elements for a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM), which updates and supersedes the baseline 2021 version covered in previous editions of these reports.
Whilst the PDF is worth skimming, the interesting changes include that the specification now mandates standard cryptographic hashes: unlike earlier standards that allowed hash omission or manifest-only parsing, hashes must be computed from the output. This is is important for reproducible builds, as it ensures the recording of the metadata required to demonstrate the shipped software matches the build output precisely where applicable. In addition, where the top-level only dependency limitation that was present in the 2021 version has been removed in favour of complete coverage with no minimum depth. That is, SBOMs are expected to reflect all linked libraries, vendored dependencies and other build-time inclusions.
LWN on Bootstrappable builds at FOSSY 2026
In the Toolchains and Other Development Tools track at Software Freedom Conservancy s FOSSY 2026 in British Columbia, Canada, Timothy Sample gave a presentation on bootstrappable builds. This presentation was then covered in a Linux Weekly News article by Jake Edge entitled Bootstrappable builds: how and why, which serves as an excellent introduction to the concept:
The basic idea behind bootstrappable builds is to create a system that can be built without relying on pre-built artifacts. Can we go from zero to the modern day without having to just assume the existence of these already-built-for-us artifacts? The classic recipe for yogurt requires some yogurt to start the process, which is like how we normally build a C compiler today we start with an existing C compiler binary. You might think about making sourdough bread with your grandmother s starter brought over from the old country; we re basically making C compilers with Dennis Ritchie s starter carried over from Bell Labs .
The article, which goes on to cover GNU Mes and other projects that overlap with Reproducible Builds, also has a number of thought-provoking comments.
What s missing to have reproducible builds on PyPI?
Core Python developer, Brett Cannon wrote an interesting blog post this month addressing What s missing to have reproducible builds on PyPI, the official public repository for third-party Python software packages:
The reason I like the idea of making reproducible builds work is that I think it can be done in such a way as to not require any work on the part of the producer of a distribution (which is a technical term for sdists or wheels, i.e., the people who upload stuff to PyPI), and thus make reproducible builds very low-friction for people to opt into supporting. [ ]
Brett goes on to outline What s missing from the specs and how reproducibility might be visible on PyPI to consumers:
Assuming all of this comes to pass and we record the where the source code is that went into a distribution and the software used to make the distribution, how do we make it useful to people? Does every person who cares about having a secure supply chain have to rebuild everything they use themselves? Is there some way for even people who don t care about this stuff to benefit? [ ]
Distribution work
In Debian this month, 23 reviews of Debian packages were added, 28 were updated and 27 were removed this month adding to our knowledge about identified issues. A number of issue types have been updated as well, such as the addition of a new toolchain issue related to python-traitlets [ ], and the note for an existing issue related to texi2html was updated as well [ ].
Lastly, Bernhard M. Wiedemann posted another openSUSE monthly update for their reproducibility work there.
Unreproducible builds under EROFS filesystem fixed
Martin Pitt reported on Fosstodon that they had identified an issue where the mkfs ( make filesystem ) command for the EROFS (Enhanced Read-Only File System) subsystem of the Linux kernel did not have sorted extended file attributes, leading to reproducible builds.
Thankfully, Martin also reported that they had fixed this in a commit to the kernel which order[s] each inode s xattrs by name so that images stay reproducible . [ ]
Tool and documentation development
diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made a number of changes, including preparing and uploading versions 327, 328 and 329 to Debian. In particular, he ensured that diffoscope did not require python3-guestfs in the autopkgtests on 32-bit architectures in order to fix Debian bug (#1144372) [ ]. Colin Watson made an additional change, handling a potentially missing openssh-client package when running the autopkgtests [ ], and Jochen Sprickerhof made a similar change to cope with missing cpio and qemu-img functionality [ ] whilst also updating the XML comparator to be considered when comparing SVG images [ ].
Yet again, there were a number of improvements made to our website this month as well. For example:
-
Chris Lamb added draft for a Gothenburg summit-related news article. [ ][ ]
-
Holger Levsen then published the same article. [ ][ ]
-
Lastly, a large number of commits were pushed comprising an interview with Reproducible Builds developer Jochen Sprickerhof to be published within the next week. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
Six new scholarly papers
Jens Dietrich, Spencer Sun, Tim W. White and Behnaz Hassanshahi (the result of a collaboration between Victoria University of Wellington and Oracle Australia published a paper this month entitled No Snake Oil: Verifying Python Package Builds. Drawing on the metaphor of snake oil , that is, a fake or ineffective medicine or solution sold with exaggerated claims of curing or fixing everything, the authors write that
Two tools that are designed to automate [PyPI] rebuilds and run them at scale are macaron and oss-rebuild. We study 12,180 popular releases from PyPI and find that the byte-for-byte equivalence rate is generally low. We analyse the reasons why they produce different wheels, and find that equivalence between the original and rebuilt wheels can often still be established, preserving most of the guarantees users expect from rebuildable releases. We present and evaluate daleq4py, a tool to establish the equivalence of Python wheels through the kernel of a normalisation function that is based on provenance-preserving datalog rules. Experimental results show that daleq4py substantially expands the set of rebuilds that can be accepted as equivalent.
The full PDF of their paper can be viewed online, and Jens Dietrich to our mailing list to announce the availability of both the paper and the daleq4py tool itself.
Dimitri Kokkonis, Micha l Marcozzi and Stefano Zacchiroli published an article this month titled Not In My Git Yard: Catching Backdoors at Commit and Release Time on the topic of code-level backdoors that is, stealthy code changes that grant hidden privileges via secret triggers . These issues:
pose a persistent threat to opensource software. Known attempts to inject such backdoors into widely used projects through malicious commits, tampered release packages, or compromised third-party dependencies, were stopped only by luck and manual review. Existing Continuous Integration (CI) pipelines cannot detect these attacks, and downstream binary analysis tools require substantial manual effort. In this work, we present Lily, an automated approach that strengthens open-source development and release processes against backdoor injection. Lily integrates a backdoor detection mechanism into (1) CI pipelines to block malicious commits, and (2) release vetting workflows to prevent tampered releases or compromised dependencies from entering large ecosystems, such as Linux distributions.
The full PDF can be read online.
Ranindya Paramitha and Laurie Williams of North Carolina State University along with Christian K stner of Carnegie Mellon University published a paper this month with the title of The Software Supply Chain as a Market for Lemons: A Multivocal Review of Trust Signal Collapse. (A lemon in American English, is a vehicle that turns out to have several manufacturing defects .) Their abstract is as follows:
Practitioners evaluating open-source dependencies rely on cheap trust signals, e.g., stars, download counts, and contributor activity, as substitutes for direct code inspection, assuming those signals reflect genuine trustworthiness. Prior work has documented individual signal gaming, but the landscape of collapses across all dependency-adoption signals, as well as the ecosystem s response, remains unexplored. The goal of this study is to aid software practitioners in understanding the reliability of dependency adoption trust signals, such as download counts and contributor activity, by conducting a multivocal review of 252 Google Search sources and 870 Reddit threads.
Worryingly, after their review, the authors conclude that cheap trust signals collapse under three simultaneous forces: adversarial manipulation, gaming techniques indistinguishable from legitimate behavior, and non-adversarial AI-driven inflation.
The full PDF of the paper is available online.
Julien Malka, Aman Sharma, Martin Monperrus, Stefano Zacchiroli and Th o Zimmermann published a paper this month on Trusting-Trust Attack against an Entire Linux Distribution through Binary Manipulation:
Ken Thompson s trusting-trust attack, in which a compromised compiler backdoors the programs it builds and reproduces the backdoor in subsequent rebuilds of itself, is widely regarded as a threat specific to compilers. We show that it is not. We construct a complete trusting-trust attack around GNU strip, an ordinary build utility that neither inspects nor generates source code, using only manipulations of finished ELF files.
Scarily, in the authors example, a single tampered strip in the binary seed implants a payload that propagates from one generation of strip to the next and survives into the final standard environment after the seed leaves the dependency closure [ ] without failures and backdoors .
A full PDF of the paper is available for download online.
Mehdi Keshanimm, Amirhossein Rahmati, Mohammad Hossein Aref and Abbas Heydarnoori published a paper that is currently under review at Emperical Software Engineering titled AROMA+: A Study of Factors Affecting Reproducible Builds in the Maven Ecosystem. (Maven is a/the build automation tool used for Java projects.) In their paper, the authors note that
[ ] reusing external software in a project presents a security risk when the source of the component is unknown or the consistency of a component cannot be verified. The SolarWinds attack serves as a popular example in which the injection of malicious code into a library affected thousands of customers and caused a loss of billions of dollars. [ ] Our research aims to support [reproducibility] efforts in the Maven ecosystem through automation. We investigate the feasibility of automatically finding the source code of a library from its Maven release and recovering information about the original release environment. Our tool, AROMA+, can obtain this critical information from the artifact and the source repository through several heuristics and we use the results for reproduction attempts of packages on Maven Central.
The full PDF of their article can be downloaded online.
Lastly, Oreofe Solarin, Kelechi Kalu, James C. Davis and Paschal Amusuo published a paper this month titled Reproducibility is Not Enough: Artifact Verifiability in Decentralized-Build Package Ecosystems:
[A]rtifact verification requires more than deterministic builds: a verifier must also recover the source state, build environment, dependencies, and build instructions that produced the artifact. Decentralized-build ecosystems make this difficult because artifacts are produced through heterogeneous tools, maintainer-controlled workflows, and fragmented metadata. As a result, it remains unclear how often artifacts in these ecosystems can be independently verified. This paper studies artifact verifiability across four popular decentralized-build package ecosystems. We define an independent verifier model that relies only on registry-derivable metadata and an artifact comparison model with tiered equivalence levels. We implement these models in an Artifact Verification Pipeline and use it to measure artifact verifiability across the target ecosystems.
The authors conclude that beyond build determinism, verifiability is limited by missing source and build metadata, implicit release transformations, and unconventional build practices .
A PDF of their paper can be reviewed online.
Patches
The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where applicable or possible. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:
-
Bernhard M. Wiedemann:
Botan
Rivet
boost
ceph
cosmic/xdgen
cpio
dmd
dvgt
efl
firefox-esr
fritzing
gcc/esbuild
git-annex
go1.27/esbuild
gputils/sdcc
grass
gri
java-21-openj9
java-25-openj9
ksh
llvm22
llvm
llvm
lutgen
maxima
mingw64-filesystem
neochat
obs
python-PyMuPDF
python-gguf
python-langgraph
python-pook
python-pyzmq
python-xgrammar
python-xlsx2csv
qt6-tools
sbcl
scons
virtualbox
xpenguins
zabbix
-
Chris Lamb:
- #1143615 filed against
keychain.
- #1143616 filed against
python-nameparser.
- #1143617 filed against
lcov.
- #1144065 filed against
displaycal-py3.
- #1144066 filed against
redmine.
- #1144407 filed against
django-htmx.
- #1144409 filed against
pybdsf.
- #1145914 filed against
golang-github-adamkorcz-go-fuzz-headers-1.
- #1145915 filed against
googletest.
-
Jochen Sprickerhof:
- #1145443 filed against
cross-toolchain-base.
- #1146088 filed against
ferret-vis.
-
Robin Candau:
-
Werner Fink:
In the Toolchains and Other Development Tools track at Software Freedom Conservancy s FOSSY 2026 in British Columbia, Canada, Timothy Sample gave a presentation on bootstrappable builds. This presentation was then covered in a Linux Weekly News article by Jake Edge entitled Bootstrappable builds: how and why, which serves as an excellent introduction to the concept:
The basic idea behind bootstrappable builds is to create a system that can be built without relying on pre-built artifacts. Can we go from zero to the modern day without having to just assume the existence of these already-built-for-us artifacts? The classic recipe for yogurt requires some yogurt to start the process, which is like how we normally build a C compiler today we start with an existing C compiler binary. You might think about making sourdough bread with your grandmother s starter brought over from the old country; we re basically making C compilers with Dennis Ritchie s starter carried over from Bell Labs .The article, which goes on to cover GNU Mes and other projects that overlap with Reproducible Builds, also has a number of thought-provoking comments.
What s missing to have reproducible builds on PyPI?
Core Python developer, Brett Cannon wrote an interesting blog post this month addressing What s missing to have reproducible builds on PyPI, the official public repository for third-party Python software packages:
The reason I like the idea of making reproducible builds work is that I think it can be done in such a way as to not require any work on the part of the producer of a distribution (which is a technical term for sdists or wheels, i.e., the people who upload stuff to PyPI), and thus make reproducible builds very low-friction for people to opt into supporting. [ ]
Brett goes on to outline What s missing from the specs and how reproducibility might be visible on PyPI to consumers:
Assuming all of this comes to pass and we record the where the source code is that went into a distribution and the software used to make the distribution, how do we make it useful to people? Does every person who cares about having a secure supply chain have to rebuild everything they use themselves? Is there some way for even people who don t care about this stuff to benefit? [ ]
Distribution work
In Debian this month, 23 reviews of Debian packages were added, 28 were updated and 27 were removed this month adding to our knowledge about identified issues. A number of issue types have been updated as well, such as the addition of a new toolchain issue related to python-traitlets [ ], and the note for an existing issue related to texi2html was updated as well [ ].
Lastly, Bernhard M. Wiedemann posted another openSUSE monthly update for their reproducibility work there.
Unreproducible builds under EROFS filesystem fixed
Martin Pitt reported on Fosstodon that they had identified an issue where the mkfs ( make filesystem ) command for the EROFS (Enhanced Read-Only File System) subsystem of the Linux kernel did not have sorted extended file attributes, leading to reproducible builds.
Thankfully, Martin also reported that they had fixed this in a commit to the kernel which order[s] each inode s xattrs by name so that images stay reproducible . [ ]
Tool and documentation development
diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made a number of changes, including preparing and uploading versions 327, 328 and 329 to Debian. In particular, he ensured that diffoscope did not require python3-guestfs in the autopkgtests on 32-bit architectures in order to fix Debian bug (#1144372) [ ]. Colin Watson made an additional change, handling a potentially missing openssh-client package when running the autopkgtests [ ], and Jochen Sprickerhof made a similar change to cope with missing cpio and qemu-img functionality [ ] whilst also updating the XML comparator to be considered when comparing SVG images [ ].
Yet again, there were a number of improvements made to our website this month as well. For example:
-
Chris Lamb added draft for a Gothenburg summit-related news article. [ ][ ]
-
Holger Levsen then published the same article. [ ][ ]
-
Lastly, a large number of commits were pushed comprising an interview with Reproducible Builds developer Jochen Sprickerhof to be published within the next week. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
Six new scholarly papers
Jens Dietrich, Spencer Sun, Tim W. White and Behnaz Hassanshahi (the result of a collaboration between Victoria University of Wellington and Oracle Australia published a paper this month entitled No Snake Oil: Verifying Python Package Builds. Drawing on the metaphor of snake oil , that is, a fake or ineffective medicine or solution sold with exaggerated claims of curing or fixing everything, the authors write that
Two tools that are designed to automate [PyPI] rebuilds and run them at scale are macaron and oss-rebuild. We study 12,180 popular releases from PyPI and find that the byte-for-byte equivalence rate is generally low. We analyse the reasons why they produce different wheels, and find that equivalence between the original and rebuilt wheels can often still be established, preserving most of the guarantees users expect from rebuildable releases. We present and evaluate daleq4py, a tool to establish the equivalence of Python wheels through the kernel of a normalisation function that is based on provenance-preserving datalog rules. Experimental results show that daleq4py substantially expands the set of rebuilds that can be accepted as equivalent.
The full PDF of their paper can be viewed online, and Jens Dietrich to our mailing list to announce the availability of both the paper and the daleq4py tool itself.
Dimitri Kokkonis, Micha l Marcozzi and Stefano Zacchiroli published an article this month titled Not In My Git Yard: Catching Backdoors at Commit and Release Time on the topic of code-level backdoors that is, stealthy code changes that grant hidden privileges via secret triggers . These issues:
pose a persistent threat to opensource software. Known attempts to inject such backdoors into widely used projects through malicious commits, tampered release packages, or compromised third-party dependencies, were stopped only by luck and manual review. Existing Continuous Integration (CI) pipelines cannot detect these attacks, and downstream binary analysis tools require substantial manual effort. In this work, we present Lily, an automated approach that strengthens open-source development and release processes against backdoor injection. Lily integrates a backdoor detection mechanism into (1) CI pipelines to block malicious commits, and (2) release vetting workflows to prevent tampered releases or compromised dependencies from entering large ecosystems, such as Linux distributions.
The full PDF can be read online.
Ranindya Paramitha and Laurie Williams of North Carolina State University along with Christian K stner of Carnegie Mellon University published a paper this month with the title of The Software Supply Chain as a Market for Lemons: A Multivocal Review of Trust Signal Collapse. (A lemon in American English, is a vehicle that turns out to have several manufacturing defects .) Their abstract is as follows:
Practitioners evaluating open-source dependencies rely on cheap trust signals, e.g., stars, download counts, and contributor activity, as substitutes for direct code inspection, assuming those signals reflect genuine trustworthiness. Prior work has documented individual signal gaming, but the landscape of collapses across all dependency-adoption signals, as well as the ecosystem s response, remains unexplored. The goal of this study is to aid software practitioners in understanding the reliability of dependency adoption trust signals, such as download counts and contributor activity, by conducting a multivocal review of 252 Google Search sources and 870 Reddit threads.
Worryingly, after their review, the authors conclude that cheap trust signals collapse under three simultaneous forces: adversarial manipulation, gaming techniques indistinguishable from legitimate behavior, and non-adversarial AI-driven inflation.
The full PDF of the paper is available online.
Julien Malka, Aman Sharma, Martin Monperrus, Stefano Zacchiroli and Th o Zimmermann published a paper this month on Trusting-Trust Attack against an Entire Linux Distribution through Binary Manipulation:
Ken Thompson s trusting-trust attack, in which a compromised compiler backdoors the programs it builds and reproduces the backdoor in subsequent rebuilds of itself, is widely regarded as a threat specific to compilers. We show that it is not. We construct a complete trusting-trust attack around GNU strip, an ordinary build utility that neither inspects nor generates source code, using only manipulations of finished ELF files.
Scarily, in the authors example, a single tampered strip in the binary seed implants a payload that propagates from one generation of strip to the next and survives into the final standard environment after the seed leaves the dependency closure [ ] without failures and backdoors .
A full PDF of the paper is available for download online.
Mehdi Keshanimm, Amirhossein Rahmati, Mohammad Hossein Aref and Abbas Heydarnoori published a paper that is currently under review at Emperical Software Engineering titled AROMA+: A Study of Factors Affecting Reproducible Builds in the Maven Ecosystem. (Maven is a/the build automation tool used for Java projects.) In their paper, the authors note that
[ ] reusing external software in a project presents a security risk when the source of the component is unknown or the consistency of a component cannot be verified. The SolarWinds attack serves as a popular example in which the injection of malicious code into a library affected thousands of customers and caused a loss of billions of dollars. [ ] Our research aims to support [reproducibility] efforts in the Maven ecosystem through automation. We investigate the feasibility of automatically finding the source code of a library from its Maven release and recovering information about the original release environment. Our tool, AROMA+, can obtain this critical information from the artifact and the source repository through several heuristics and we use the results for reproduction attempts of packages on Maven Central.
The full PDF of their article can be downloaded online.
Lastly, Oreofe Solarin, Kelechi Kalu, James C. Davis and Paschal Amusuo published a paper this month titled Reproducibility is Not Enough: Artifact Verifiability in Decentralized-Build Package Ecosystems:
[A]rtifact verification requires more than deterministic builds: a verifier must also recover the source state, build environment, dependencies, and build instructions that produced the artifact. Decentralized-build ecosystems make this difficult because artifacts are produced through heterogeneous tools, maintainer-controlled workflows, and fragmented metadata. As a result, it remains unclear how often artifacts in these ecosystems can be independently verified. This paper studies artifact verifiability across four popular decentralized-build package ecosystems. We define an independent verifier model that relies only on registry-derivable metadata and an artifact comparison model with tiered equivalence levels. We implement these models in an Artifact Verification Pipeline and use it to measure artifact verifiability across the target ecosystems.
The authors conclude that beyond build determinism, verifiability is limited by missing source and build metadata, implicit release transformations, and unconventional build practices .
A PDF of their paper can be reviewed online.
Patches
The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where applicable or possible. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:
-
Bernhard M. Wiedemann:
Botan
Rivet
boost
ceph
cosmic/xdgen
cpio
dmd
dvgt
efl
firefox-esr
fritzing
gcc/esbuild
git-annex
go1.27/esbuild
gputils/sdcc
grass
gri
java-21-openj9
java-25-openj9
ksh
llvm22
llvm
llvm
lutgen
maxima
mingw64-filesystem
neochat
obs
python-PyMuPDF
python-gguf
python-langgraph
python-pook
python-pyzmq
python-xgrammar
python-xlsx2csv
qt6-tools
sbcl
scons
virtualbox
xpenguins
zabbix
-
Chris Lamb:
- #1143615 filed against
keychain.
- #1143616 filed against
python-nameparser.
- #1143617 filed against
lcov.
- #1144065 filed against
displaycal-py3.
- #1144066 filed against
redmine.
- #1144407 filed against
django-htmx.
- #1144409 filed against
pybdsf.
- #1145914 filed against
golang-github-adamkorcz-go-fuzz-headers-1.
- #1145915 filed against
googletest.
-
Jochen Sprickerhof:
- #1145443 filed against
cross-toolchain-base.
- #1146088 filed against
ferret-vis.
-
Robin Candau:
-
Werner Fink:
In Debian this month, 23 reviews of Debian packages were added, 28 were updated and 27 were removed this month adding to our knowledge about identified issues. A number of issue types have been updated as well, such as the addition of a new toolchain issue related to python-traitlets [ ], and the note for an existing issue related to texi2html was updated as well [ ].
Lastly, Bernhard M. Wiedemann posted another openSUSE monthly update for their reproducibility work there.
Unreproducible builds under EROFS filesystem fixed
Martin Pitt reported on Fosstodon that they had identified an issue where the mkfs ( make filesystem ) command for the EROFS (Enhanced Read-Only File System) subsystem of the Linux kernel did not have sorted extended file attributes, leading to reproducible builds.
Thankfully, Martin also reported that they had fixed this in a commit to the kernel which order[s] each inode s xattrs by name so that images stay reproducible . [ ]
Tool and documentation development
diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made a number of changes, including preparing and uploading versions 327, 328 and 329 to Debian. In particular, he ensured that diffoscope did not require python3-guestfs in the autopkgtests on 32-bit architectures in order to fix Debian bug (#1144372) [ ]. Colin Watson made an additional change, handling a potentially missing openssh-client package when running the autopkgtests [ ], and Jochen Sprickerhof made a similar change to cope with missing cpio and qemu-img functionality [ ] whilst also updating the XML comparator to be considered when comparing SVG images [ ].
Yet again, there were a number of improvements made to our website this month as well. For example:
-
Chris Lamb added draft for a Gothenburg summit-related news article. [ ][ ]
-
Holger Levsen then published the same article. [ ][ ]
-
Lastly, a large number of commits were pushed comprising an interview with Reproducible Builds developer Jochen Sprickerhof to be published within the next week. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
Six new scholarly papers
Jens Dietrich, Spencer Sun, Tim W. White and Behnaz Hassanshahi (the result of a collaboration between Victoria University of Wellington and Oracle Australia published a paper this month entitled No Snake Oil: Verifying Python Package Builds. Drawing on the metaphor of snake oil , that is, a fake or ineffective medicine or solution sold with exaggerated claims of curing or fixing everything, the authors write that
Two tools that are designed to automate [PyPI] rebuilds and run them at scale are macaron and oss-rebuild. We study 12,180 popular releases from PyPI and find that the byte-for-byte equivalence rate is generally low. We analyse the reasons why they produce different wheels, and find that equivalence between the original and rebuilt wheels can often still be established, preserving most of the guarantees users expect from rebuildable releases. We present and evaluate daleq4py, a tool to establish the equivalence of Python wheels through the kernel of a normalisation function that is based on provenance-preserving datalog rules. Experimental results show that daleq4py substantially expands the set of rebuilds that can be accepted as equivalent.
The full PDF of their paper can be viewed online, and Jens Dietrich to our mailing list to announce the availability of both the paper and the daleq4py tool itself.
Dimitri Kokkonis, Micha l Marcozzi and Stefano Zacchiroli published an article this month titled Not In My Git Yard: Catching Backdoors at Commit and Release Time on the topic of code-level backdoors that is, stealthy code changes that grant hidden privileges via secret triggers . These issues:
pose a persistent threat to opensource software. Known attempts to inject such backdoors into widely used projects through malicious commits, tampered release packages, or compromised third-party dependencies, were stopped only by luck and manual review. Existing Continuous Integration (CI) pipelines cannot detect these attacks, and downstream binary analysis tools require substantial manual effort. In this work, we present Lily, an automated approach that strengthens open-source development and release processes against backdoor injection. Lily integrates a backdoor detection mechanism into (1) CI pipelines to block malicious commits, and (2) release vetting workflows to prevent tampered releases or compromised dependencies from entering large ecosystems, such as Linux distributions.
The full PDF can be read online.
Ranindya Paramitha and Laurie Williams of North Carolina State University along with Christian K stner of Carnegie Mellon University published a paper this month with the title of The Software Supply Chain as a Market for Lemons: A Multivocal Review of Trust Signal Collapse. (A lemon in American English, is a vehicle that turns out to have several manufacturing defects .) Their abstract is as follows:
Practitioners evaluating open-source dependencies rely on cheap trust signals, e.g., stars, download counts, and contributor activity, as substitutes for direct code inspection, assuming those signals reflect genuine trustworthiness. Prior work has documented individual signal gaming, but the landscape of collapses across all dependency-adoption signals, as well as the ecosystem s response, remains unexplored. The goal of this study is to aid software practitioners in understanding the reliability of dependency adoption trust signals, such as download counts and contributor activity, by conducting a multivocal review of 252 Google Search sources and 870 Reddit threads.
Worryingly, after their review, the authors conclude that cheap trust signals collapse under three simultaneous forces: adversarial manipulation, gaming techniques indistinguishable from legitimate behavior, and non-adversarial AI-driven inflation.
The full PDF of the paper is available online.
Julien Malka, Aman Sharma, Martin Monperrus, Stefano Zacchiroli and Th o Zimmermann published a paper this month on Trusting-Trust Attack against an Entire Linux Distribution through Binary Manipulation:
Ken Thompson s trusting-trust attack, in which a compromised compiler backdoors the programs it builds and reproduces the backdoor in subsequent rebuilds of itself, is widely regarded as a threat specific to compilers. We show that it is not. We construct a complete trusting-trust attack around GNU strip, an ordinary build utility that neither inspects nor generates source code, using only manipulations of finished ELF files.
Scarily, in the authors example, a single tampered strip in the binary seed implants a payload that propagates from one generation of strip to the next and survives into the final standard environment after the seed leaves the dependency closure [ ] without failures and backdoors .
A full PDF of the paper is available for download online.
Mehdi Keshanimm, Amirhossein Rahmati, Mohammad Hossein Aref and Abbas Heydarnoori published a paper that is currently under review at Emperical Software Engineering titled AROMA+: A Study of Factors Affecting Reproducible Builds in the Maven Ecosystem. (Maven is a/the build automation tool used for Java projects.) In their paper, the authors note that
[ ] reusing external software in a project presents a security risk when the source of the component is unknown or the consistency of a component cannot be verified. The SolarWinds attack serves as a popular example in which the injection of malicious code into a library affected thousands of customers and caused a loss of billions of dollars. [ ] Our research aims to support [reproducibility] efforts in the Maven ecosystem through automation. We investigate the feasibility of automatically finding the source code of a library from its Maven release and recovering information about the original release environment. Our tool, AROMA+, can obtain this critical information from the artifact and the source repository through several heuristics and we use the results for reproduction attempts of packages on Maven Central.
The full PDF of their article can be downloaded online.
Lastly, Oreofe Solarin, Kelechi Kalu, James C. Davis and Paschal Amusuo published a paper this month titled Reproducibility is Not Enough: Artifact Verifiability in Decentralized-Build Package Ecosystems:
[A]rtifact verification requires more than deterministic builds: a verifier must also recover the source state, build environment, dependencies, and build instructions that produced the artifact. Decentralized-build ecosystems make this difficult because artifacts are produced through heterogeneous tools, maintainer-controlled workflows, and fragmented metadata. As a result, it remains unclear how often artifacts in these ecosystems can be independently verified. This paper studies artifact verifiability across four popular decentralized-build package ecosystems. We define an independent verifier model that relies only on registry-derivable metadata and an artifact comparison model with tiered equivalence levels. We implement these models in an Artifact Verification Pipeline and use it to measure artifact verifiability across the target ecosystems.
The authors conclude that beyond build determinism, verifiability is limited by missing source and build metadata, implicit release transformations, and unconventional build practices .
A PDF of their paper can be reviewed online.
Patches
The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where applicable or possible. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:
-
Bernhard M. Wiedemann:
Botan
Rivet
boost
ceph
cosmic/xdgen
cpio
dmd
dvgt
efl
firefox-esr
fritzing
gcc/esbuild
git-annex
go1.27/esbuild
gputils/sdcc
grass
gri
java-21-openj9
java-25-openj9
ksh
llvm22
llvm
llvm
lutgen
maxima
mingw64-filesystem
neochat
obs
python-PyMuPDF
python-gguf
python-langgraph
python-pook
python-pyzmq
python-xgrammar
python-xlsx2csv
qt6-tools
sbcl
scons
virtualbox
xpenguins
zabbix
-
Chris Lamb:
- #1143615 filed against
keychain.
- #1143616 filed against
python-nameparser.
- #1143617 filed against
lcov.
- #1144065 filed against
displaycal-py3.
- #1144066 filed against
redmine.
- #1144407 filed against
django-htmx.
- #1144409 filed against
pybdsf.
- #1145914 filed against
golang-github-adamkorcz-go-fuzz-headers-1.
- #1145915 filed against
googletest.
-
Jochen Sprickerhof:
- #1145443 filed against
cross-toolchain-base.
- #1146088 filed against
ferret-vis.
-
Robin Candau:
-
Werner Fink:
diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made a number of changes, including preparing and uploading versions 327, 328 and 329 to Debian. In particular, he ensured that diffoscope did not require python3-guestfs in the autopkgtests on 32-bit architectures in order to fix Debian bug (#1144372) [ ]. Colin Watson made an additional change, handling a potentially missing openssh-client package when running the autopkgtests [ ], and Jochen Sprickerhof made a similar change to cope with missing cpio and qemu-img functionality [ ] whilst also updating the XML comparator to be considered when comparing SVG images [ ].
Yet again, there were a number of improvements made to our website this month as well. For example:
- Chris Lamb added draft for a Gothenburg summit-related news article. [ ][ ]
- Holger Levsen then published the same article. [ ][ ]
- Lastly, a large number of commits were pushed comprising an interview with Reproducible Builds developer Jochen Sprickerhof to be published within the next week. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
Six new scholarly papers
Jens Dietrich, Spencer Sun, Tim W. White and Behnaz Hassanshahi (the result of a collaboration between Victoria University of Wellington and Oracle Australia published a paper this month entitled No Snake Oil: Verifying Python Package Builds. Drawing on the metaphor of snake oil , that is, a fake or ineffective medicine or solution sold with exaggerated claims of curing or fixing everything, the authors write that
Two tools that are designed to automate [PyPI] rebuilds and run them at scale are macaron and oss-rebuild. We study 12,180 popular releases from PyPI and find that the byte-for-byte equivalence rate is generally low. We analyse the reasons why they produce different wheels, and find that equivalence between the original and rebuilt wheels can often still be established, preserving most of the guarantees users expect from rebuildable releases. We present and evaluate daleq4py, a tool to establish the equivalence of Python wheels through the kernel of a normalisation function that is based on provenance-preserving datalog rules. Experimental results show that daleq4py substantially expands the set of rebuilds that can be accepted as equivalent.
The full PDF of their paper can be viewed online, and Jens Dietrich to our mailing list to announce the availability of both the paper and the daleq4py tool itself.
Dimitri Kokkonis, Micha l Marcozzi and Stefano Zacchiroli published an article this month titled Not In My Git Yard: Catching Backdoors at Commit and Release Time on the topic of code-level backdoors that is, stealthy code changes that grant hidden privileges via secret triggers . These issues:
pose a persistent threat to opensource software. Known attempts to inject such backdoors into widely used projects through malicious commits, tampered release packages, or compromised third-party dependencies, were stopped only by luck and manual review. Existing Continuous Integration (CI) pipelines cannot detect these attacks, and downstream binary analysis tools require substantial manual effort. In this work, we present Lily, an automated approach that strengthens open-source development and release processes against backdoor injection. Lily integrates a backdoor detection mechanism into (1) CI pipelines to block malicious commits, and (2) release vetting workflows to prevent tampered releases or compromised dependencies from entering large ecosystems, such as Linux distributions.
The full PDF can be read online.
Ranindya Paramitha and Laurie Williams of North Carolina State University along with Christian K stner of Carnegie Mellon University published a paper this month with the title of The Software Supply Chain as a Market for Lemons: A Multivocal Review of Trust Signal Collapse. (A lemon in American English, is a vehicle that turns out to have several manufacturing defects .) Their abstract is as follows:
Practitioners evaluating open-source dependencies rely on cheap trust signals, e.g., stars, download counts, and contributor activity, as substitutes for direct code inspection, assuming those signals reflect genuine trustworthiness. Prior work has documented individual signal gaming, but the landscape of collapses across all dependency-adoption signals, as well as the ecosystem s response, remains unexplored. The goal of this study is to aid software practitioners in understanding the reliability of dependency adoption trust signals, such as download counts and contributor activity, by conducting a multivocal review of 252 Google Search sources and 870 Reddit threads.
Worryingly, after their review, the authors conclude that cheap trust signals collapse under three simultaneous forces: adversarial manipulation, gaming techniques indistinguishable from legitimate behavior, and non-adversarial AI-driven inflation.
The full PDF of the paper is available online.
Julien Malka, Aman Sharma, Martin Monperrus, Stefano Zacchiroli and Th o Zimmermann published a paper this month on Trusting-Trust Attack against an Entire Linux Distribution through Binary Manipulation:
Ken Thompson s trusting-trust attack, in which a compromised compiler backdoors the programs it builds and reproduces the backdoor in subsequent rebuilds of itself, is widely regarded as a threat specific to compilers. We show that it is not. We construct a complete trusting-trust attack around GNU strip, an ordinary build utility that neither inspects nor generates source code, using only manipulations of finished ELF files.
Scarily, in the authors example, a single tampered strip in the binary seed implants a payload that propagates from one generation of strip to the next and survives into the final standard environment after the seed leaves the dependency closure [ ] without failures and backdoors .
A full PDF of the paper is available for download online.
Mehdi Keshanimm, Amirhossein Rahmati, Mohammad Hossein Aref and Abbas Heydarnoori published a paper that is currently under review at Emperical Software Engineering titled AROMA+: A Study of Factors Affecting Reproducible Builds in the Maven Ecosystem. (Maven is a/the build automation tool used for Java projects.) In their paper, the authors note that
[ ] reusing external software in a project presents a security risk when the source of the component is unknown or the consistency of a component cannot be verified. The SolarWinds attack serves as a popular example in which the injection of malicious code into a library affected thousands of customers and caused a loss of billions of dollars. [ ] Our research aims to support [reproducibility] efforts in the Maven ecosystem through automation. We investigate the feasibility of automatically finding the source code of a library from its Maven release and recovering information about the original release environment. Our tool, AROMA+, can obtain this critical information from the artifact and the source repository through several heuristics and we use the results for reproduction attempts of packages on Maven Central.
The full PDF of their article can be downloaded online.
Lastly, Oreofe Solarin, Kelechi Kalu, James C. Davis and Paschal Amusuo published a paper this month titled Reproducibility is Not Enough: Artifact Verifiability in Decentralized-Build Package Ecosystems:
[A]rtifact verification requires more than deterministic builds: a verifier must also recover the source state, build environment, dependencies, and build instructions that produced the artifact. Decentralized-build ecosystems make this difficult because artifacts are produced through heterogeneous tools, maintainer-controlled workflows, and fragmented metadata. As a result, it remains unclear how often artifacts in these ecosystems can be independently verified. This paper studies artifact verifiability across four popular decentralized-build package ecosystems. We define an independent verifier model that relies only on registry-derivable metadata and an artifact comparison model with tiered equivalence levels. We implement these models in an Artifact Verification Pipeline and use it to measure artifact verifiability across the target ecosystems.
The authors conclude that beyond build determinism, verifiability is limited by missing source and build metadata, implicit release transformations, and unconventional build practices .
A PDF of their paper can be reviewed online.
Patches
The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where applicable or possible. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:
-
Bernhard M. Wiedemann:
Botan
Rivet
boost
ceph
cosmic/xdgen
cpio
dmd
dvgt
efl
firefox-esr
fritzing
gcc/esbuild
git-annex
go1.27/esbuild
gputils/sdcc
grass
gri
java-21-openj9
java-25-openj9
ksh
llvm22
llvm
llvm
lutgen
maxima
mingw64-filesystem
neochat
obs
python-PyMuPDF
python-gguf
python-langgraph
python-pook
python-pyzmq
python-xgrammar
python-xlsx2csv
qt6-tools
sbcl
scons
virtualbox
xpenguins
zabbix
-
Chris Lamb:
- #1143615 filed against
keychain.
- #1143616 filed against
python-nameparser.
- #1143617 filed against
lcov.
- #1144065 filed against
displaycal-py3.
- #1144066 filed against
redmine.
- #1144407 filed against
django-htmx.
- #1144409 filed against
pybdsf.
- #1145914 filed against
golang-github-adamkorcz-go-fuzz-headers-1.
- #1145915 filed against
googletest.
-
Jochen Sprickerhof:
- #1145443 filed against
cross-toolchain-base.
- #1146088 filed against
ferret-vis.
-
Robin Candau:
-
Werner Fink:
macaron and oss-rebuild. We study 12,180 popular releases from PyPI and find that the byte-for-byte equivalence rate is generally low. We analyse the reasons why they produce different wheels, and find that equivalence between the original and rebuilt wheels can often still be established, preserving most of the guarantees users expect from rebuildable releases. We present and evaluate daleq4py, a tool to establish the equivalence of Python wheels through the kernel of a normalisation function that is based on provenance-preserving datalog rules. Experimental results show that daleq4py substantially expands the set of rebuilds that can be accepted as equivalent.
-
Bernhard M. Wiedemann:
BotanRivetboostcephcosmic/xdgencpiodmddvgteflfirefox-esrfritzinggcc/esbuildgit-annexgo1.27/esbuildgputils/sdccgrassgrijava-21-openj9java-25-openj9kshllvm22llvmllvmlutgenmaximamingw64-filesystemneochatobspython-PyMuPDFpython-ggufpython-langgraphpython-pookpython-pyzmqpython-xgrammarpython-xlsx2csvqt6-toolssbclsconsvirtualboxxpenguinszabbix
-
Chris Lamb:
- #1143615 filed against
keychain. - #1143616 filed against
python-nameparser. - #1143617 filed against
lcov. - #1144065 filed against
displaycal-py3. - #1144066 filed against
redmine. - #1144407 filed against
django-htmx. - #1144409 filed against
pybdsf. - #1145914 filed against
golang-github-adamkorcz-go-fuzz-headers-1. - #1145915 filed against
googletest.
- #1143615 filed against
-
Jochen Sprickerhof:
- #1145443 filed against
cross-toolchain-base. - #1146088 filed against
ferret-vis.
- #1145443 filed against
- Robin Candau:
- Werner Fink:
If you are interested in contributing to the project, please visit our Contribute page on our website.


However, when playing it, it becomes very obvious (as you can likely see) that
there s a fair amount of packet loss (understandable) and probably some packet
collisions taking place.
After tweaking the local routing tables (and restarting
Yes! I forgot to make this one a video, so no gif. I did wind up having a bit
if trouble with a few gopher clients and IPv6 support I may send some
patches if I can find the time.
I gave up the center bin (0 Hz) and 8 of the 64 bits on each side (1/4 of the
signal!) to give myself a bit of elbow room. This is perhaps definitely a bit
overkill, but it s been an extremely robust choice. If you multiply that
through, this accounts for 312.5 kHz of frequency domain padding at the high
and low end of the bandwidth, or 625.0 kHz of bandwidth which is not to be used.
My intent in placement was to pick out roughly even stretches of data bins
bracketed between pilots, with as few data subcarriers as practical outside
of a pilot (using extrapolation). I ve played a bit with my AGWN simulator(s),
as well as logging errors between two SDRs, and the configuration I have this
in has been fairly resillant (for whatever reason), and withstood a few rounds
of tweaking.
This puts the total number of data bins at 43, which, since Mode A carries data
in QPSK/QAM-4 (two bits per data subcarrier), means we can carry 86 bits of
data per OFDM symbol. That fairly modest capacity is largely due to the
modulation scheme (or fft size, but increasing that has been fraught) we re
using for Mode A but I ve made up for it by including
One of those arguments became its own fix. My wording implied symbols were
unpacked inside the isolated sbuild environment (the consequence was I was
handed a
Every merge request above landed with unit tests, but those only tell you
that the pieces behave correctly. What Colin and I wanted was a real gdb
fetching real symbols from a real instance, so
I spent 6 hours working with an AI to write a bash script that would show me both active & inactive reserved DHCP addresses, as well as active leases from pool. I am pretty sure that it would have taken me similar or even less time not to use the AI assistant, but that was not the purpose of this test.
Many years ago, before I had my sewing pattern website, I made myself a
simple corset cover according to
It worked, I wore it. Years later I saw
Then, after finishing my vampire shirt, I noticed that I had just enough
fabric left for a corset cover, and by just enough I really mean just
enough, as I discovered when laying the pattern on the fabric.
So I dug in my files to get the original pattern I used, brought it up
to date, and added the missing details such as the pleating guides that
I had skipped when making the pattern just for myself. Doing so I
realized that on my old cover I had done the fake pleat in the front
wrong, making just a single pleat instead of a box pleat. Also, I
originally directly gathered the sleeves in the armscyes, but watching
the book again I realized that the sleeves were made up of a gathered
ruffle plus a straight band.
Both issues were fixed and I could cut the fabric and start sewing. By
machine, including using a narrow hem foot instead of sewing rolled hems
by hand as my instinct kept reminding me would have looked neater.
But this is a garment from a sewing machine time, and probably one that
in many cases would have been bought from a mass producer, and it s
underwear, so there is no real need for the hems to be perfect, as it s
going to be hidden anyway. But most importantly, I wanted to write
instructions for machine sewing, for a change, and so I had to machine
sew all steps that I had to take pictures of.
I did do the buttonholes by hand, because I hate the buttonhole
attachment on my machine, and the buttonhole attachment hates me.
I used a lighter weight fabric for the sleeve ruffles, both because I
didn t have a big enough piece of main fabric not to have to piece them,
and because I felt that it looks better, as it s the same voile I used
for the ruffles on the vampire shirt.
When it came to the beading lace, I had two that I had bought more or
less thinking about this project: the earlier one was narrow and
suitable to do its job, but the one I had bought more recently was
taller, with an edge that made it suitable to give more fullness to the
bust when gathered up.
I contemplated for a short while, and then decided to go for fullness
and use the taller border for the top edge, but the smaller one at the
waist, where fullness is not wanted.
The book claimed that this pattern required little labour, and indeed it
did: even when taking step by step pictures it only took a few hours
spread over a week, plus the time to make buttonholes by hand over the
next week.
And then the reason for the whole project: I published my
Remember the
For the face I decided to make holes in the cardboard and fill them with
hot glue to make a sort of light pipe, with the LEDs pressed against
them on the inside. It s not perfect, but it mostly works.
And then everything stopped: while I waited for the PVA to dry I started
doing something else, and then there were other projects, and other, and
the clock lingered in the Pile. There was a brief interruption as I
started to paint the first coat of brown, and then I moved back to the
other projects.
Until, months later, I decided it was time to finish using the brown and
white tubes of paint that I had on my desktop, so I could put them away
However, the raspberry had quite a lot of pins, and it felt wasteful to
use it on something that basically needs one. On the other hand, I had
recently bought a few
The next step involved dealing with the temporary connections to make
them a bit more permanent: I have been using LibrePCB for that other
project, so of course what I did was grabbing a bit of perfboard and
YOLO a growing rat nest of cables over it, without bothering with
drawing any kind of schematics in advance. And having to desolder stuff
and solder it again a couple of times, because I had issues with the
difference between left and right, and with the concept of rotations in
3D space.
Everything was brought back into the case, in a mostly stable
configuration with an usb cable coming out of a hole in the back for
power and surprisingly it works.
Or at least, 95% of the issues it still has are software, plus I still
need to add a few features, so right now it lives above my desktop, with
the cable dangling close to an USB port, so that I can continue working
on that in the next few weeks.
The external look is not going to change, so there will be changes on
Email is hard. SMTP was a simple mail transfer protocol except that now it's a relatively difficult mail protocol with things overlaid on top.
It is widely accepted that there is an AI bubble in the financial markets at the moment. The moderate opinion is however that LLMs are constantly improving and will eventually take over more and more tasks from humans and increase productivity. But are LLMs actually getting smarter, or just better at fooling us?
There is a growing faction of technical experts that argue that LLMs are actually so bad for real progress, that they are banning their use and requiring human-only work to ensure quality and efficient use of humans time. A recent