Search Results: "flo"

15 July 2026

Dirk Eddelbuettel: qlcal 0.1.2 on CRAN: Fresh Upstream Updates

The twentieth release of the qlcal package arrivied at CRAN today, and has been built for r2u. This version synchronises with QuantLib 1.43 released today as well. qlcal delivers the calendaring parts of QuantLib. It is provided (for the R package) as a set of included files, so the package is self-contained and does not depend on an external QuantLib library (which can be demanding to build). qlcal covers over seventy country / market calendars and can compute holiday lists, its complement (i.e. business day lists) and much more. Examples are in the README at the repository, the package page, and course at the CRAN package page. This releases updates to several new calendars (see below), and extends the calendars for Israel to some added new conventions, updates a few helper functions, and turns on ccache for continuous integration builds. The full details from NEWS.Rd follow.

Changes in version 0.1.2 (2026-07-14)
  • Synchronized with QuantLib 1.43
  • Calendar updates for India, Israel, and South Korea; small interface update for Israle
  • New calendars for Croatia, Malta, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Slovenia, Uzebekistan
  • Updates to a number of QuantLib helper functions
  • Continuous integration now uses ccache via a setup action

Courtesy of my CRANberries, there is a diffstat report for this release. See the project page and package documentation for more details, and more examples.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

Freexian Collaborators: Debian Contributions: Python 3.14 as default transition, DebConf 26 preparations, debvm, pconr and more! (by Anupa Ann Joseph)

Debian Contributions: 2026-06 Contributing to Debian is part of Freexian s mission. This article covers the latest achievements of Freexian and their collaborators. All of this is made possible by organizations subscribing to our Long Term Support contracts and consulting services.

Python 3.14 as default transition, by Stefano Rivera Debian has had Python 3.13 and 3.14 in unstable and testing since December 2025, with Python 3.13 as the default version (/usr/bin/python3 = 3.13). This gave time for packages to implement support and detect issues in their test suites. A slot to transition to 3.14 as default was requested from the release team in March, and they indicated that we would likely be able to schedule it in late June. In preparation, Stefano reviewed the open bugs against Python interpreters and squashed some in uploads of the latest point releases of Python: 3.13.14 and 3.14.6. Also in June, Python 3.15.0 beta 2 and beta 3 released. Stefano uploaded these to Debian experimental. The 3.15 betas were reason to attempt to revive review of a blocked upstream patch to support Debian multiarch in stable ABI Python extensions, now that Python 3.15 is adding a new stable ABI abi3t.

DebConf 26 preparations, by Stefano Rivera, Antonio Terceiro, Lucas Kanashiro, Santiago Ruano Rinc n and Anupa Ann Joseph DebConf 26, the annual Debian Developer Conference, is being held in Santa Fe, Argentina, in July. Stefano Rivera, Antonio Terceiro, Lucas Kanashiro, Santiago Ruano and Anupa Ann Joseph contributed to the preparations for the event.
  • As usual, Stefano has been supporting the conference website and registration, helping the local team to get accurate data on attendee numbers.
  • Antonio has been supporting the conference website and helping the content team to put together the conference schedule.
  • Santiago has been helping the local team on different topics regarding logistics.
  • Anupa assisted with the accommodation arrangements for DebCamp and DebConf, working alongside Nattie.
  • Lucas has been coordinating the conference schedule and communicating with some speakers.

debvm, by Helmut Grohne The debvm tool used for creating and running ephemeral virtual machines saw a number of small improvements. The requirement of having a filesystem label has been removed in favor of using a uuid and /etc/fstab is no longer created. A memory balloon is enabled by default and this enables qemu to automatically release free guest memory to the host. Booting Ubuntu VMs regressed as a result of their use of uutils and has been fixed. The --architecture flag is back to be able to better support Hurd, which is a work-in-progress of Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues. Thanks to Jochen Sprickerhof, you can more easily create VMs for autopkgtest-virt-qemu using --hook-dir=/usr/share/mmdebstrap/hooks/autopkgtest-create-qemu. There also are a few documentation and error message improvements. All of this is pending in git waiting to be uploaded once development slows down. While booting a machine from virtiofsd succeeded, turning the proof-of-concept into production remains for later.

pconr, by Helmut Grohne At DebConf25, Helmut reported on a schroot substitute called unschroot. The second iteration uses varlink IPC to construct a container. That varlink API is now separated into a new project called programmable container runtime. It is meant to provide more flexibility in constructing containers than established solutions such as the unshare command from util-linux, bubblewrap or podman provide while still managing repetitive complexity such as process orchestration for the developer. A new example that uses this infrastructure is a better containment for mmdebstrap eliminating chroot escape. There also is an asyncvarlink/0.3.2 release taking steps to become more maintainable in Debian to eventually get pconr into Debian.

Miscellaneous contributions
  • Stefano did routine uploads (mostly new upstream versions) of python-pip, python-pipx, hatchling, dh-python, beautifulsoup4, python-virtualenv, python-mitogen.
  • Stefano uploaded a snowball mini-transition: snowball, snowball-data, and pystemmer
  • Stefano did some debian.net team admin, setting up a container and later a VM for vote.debian.net.
  • Stefano responded to a semi-escalation to the Debian Technical Committee, after some communication between an upstream, a bug reporter, and a Debian package maintainer went sideways and got heated.
  • Emilio managed several transitions, and filed bugs against the few remaining GCC 13 rdeps.
  • Antonio did salsa maintenance work, debugging service issues, approving user registrations, and processing support requests.
  • Antonio worked on Debian CI maintenance, including but not limited to deploying new armhf and armel workers, fixing bugs and preparing an upcoming release of debci.
  • Antonio did several maintenance tasks for MiniDebConf websites.
  • Antonio uploaded ruby-bunny, ruby-sinatra and ruby-mustermann, fixing a few FTBFS bugs among them.
  • Carles using po-debconf-manager: Reviewed Catalan translations for 5 packages, submitted 6 packages. Added a draft blog/update about the po-debconf-manager project.
  • Carles submitted a new Geeqie Catalan translation: it had accumulated a large number of untranslated strings over the last 4 years.
  • Carles contributed to the Debian wiki: improved documentation for the Framework Laptop and added a new section Battery charging control (after doing some debugging and testing). He wrote a page about Signal Desktop. Carles started looking at testing/documenting Mailman2 -> Mailman3 migration.
  • Carles, in relation to the migration process, double checked old pages without relevant information in the Debian wiki.
  • Thorsten did another upload of package hplip to fix some bugs.
  • In the context of the Google Summer of Code 2026 project, Santiago continued co-mentoring Aryan Karamtoth, who is working on the Linux live-patching project. As part of the team, Santiago guided Aryan to help design the different workflows and to study the different tools available, including the upstream klp-build (that was introduced in v6.19), and compare it with SUSE s klp-build.
  • Colin clarified the bug tracking system s documentation to indicate that maintainers may sometimes reasonably ask users to file bugs upstream themselves.
  • Colin fixed 15 packages for pytest 9.1.
  • Colin fixed a depthcharge-tools regression with Python 3.14 as default that broke debian-installer builds.
  • Helmut continued to report undeclared file conflicts and correspond about them.
  • Helmut wrote patches for strace to enable cross building and a 32bit personality on arm64.
  • Helmut continued maintaining rebootstrap working fixing build failures in fontconfig, gettext and sqlite3 as well as changing the way packages from gcc builds are installed to better serve a need reported by Samuel Thibault.

14 July 2026

Gunnar Wolf: Got your keys ready for DebConf26?

Yay! Finally it s that time of year DebCamp is underway, and soon it will be time for DebConf! As it is by now tradition, it s my task to coordinate the DebConf26 keysigning party. And, as usual, I have set up the list of DebConf26 keysigning maps for everybody involved. So, if you are taking part of DebConf, make sure to:

12 July 2026

Kentaro Hayashi: Try to build Mozc with Bazel 7.7.1

Introduction Recently, I've got a chance to try building Mozc (Most famous Japanese input method editor) with Bazel. As you know, recently newer Bazel related packages were landed into debian/unstable. Then now I'm planning to update Mozc from 2.29.5160.102 to 3.33.6133.

Background story about Mozc and Debian The upstream of Mozc had released 3.34.6239, but on Debian, we stick to Mozc 2.29.5160.102. Mozc requires newer Bazel but we only had Bazel 4.2.3 at that time on Debian, so even though the upstream of Mozc switched from GYP to Bazel, we had patched Mozc with GYP based package. We even did make an effort to restore build options that had been already removed. :-( And needed to migrate from GTK2 renderer to GTK3 renderer. That is why the version of Mozc is diverged from upstream on Debian.
  • 2.29.5160.102 (Now on Debian)
  • 2.29.5268.102
  • 2.29.5374.102
  • 2.29.5544.102
  • 2.30.5544.102
  • 2.31.5712.102
  • 2.31.5851.102
  • 2.32.5994.102
  • 3.33.6089
  • 3.33.6133 (Target to upgrade for)
  • 3.34.6239

How to switch from GYP to Bazel? At first, we needed to decide what Mozc version to work with it. Now latest version of Mozc is 3.34.x, but it requires Bazel 9.x. Please recall that Bazel 7.7.1 was introduced Debian/unstable. And more, newer dependency libraries are required. You might feel that target version (3.33.6133) is too high from 2.29.5160.102, but if we upgrade to more older Mozc, it means that it requires to backport Mozc to older libabsl compatible codes and so on. That is why Mozc 3.33.6133 was chosen. Even once the target version has been decided, you can't let your guard down. There are many technical tasks to solve.
  • Revisit patch sets to apply
  • Porting uim mozc patch and fix FTBFS
  • Porting fcitx5 mozc patch and fix FTBFS
  • Fix src/third_party vendoring
  • Switch from GYP to Bazel build systems
  • ...
At least, it will likely require several rounds of testing in the Debian experimental.

Conclusion Currently, gbp buildpackge has succeeded finally on local machine, but need to tidy and cleanup stuffs. I didn't know packaging with Bazel best practice yet, to remove many third party vendor/ bundles, I've found that it requires pile of patch to eliminate them. In the current version of Debian, as a one of build system, further work such as support from debhelper - will be needed. I'll file working progress on #1085173

Vasudev Kamath: Releasing debvulns-exporter: Prometheus exporter for Debian System Vulnerabilities

Following up on my previous post, I am releasing debvulns-exporter, a Prometheus exporter for tracking Debian system vulnerabilities. The underlying vulnerability analysis logic remains identical to the previously released MCP server and CLI utility.
Why an Exporter? In my engineering workflows, I frequently deal with Debian and vulnerability management. Most enterprise environments rely on commercial, paid vulnerability platforms like Tenable or Rapid7. While these platforms provide extensive feature sets, I noticed a distinct lack of open-source tools tailored for this specific pipeline. While debsecan exists, it lacks a structured, parseable format suitable for building dashboards aimed at management consumption. What started as an experimental MCP server for learning purposes evolved into a practical question: why not convert it into a Prometheus exporter? Given that Prometheus is the de facto standard metrics platform across the industry, this architecture was the logical next step.
Design and Exported Metrics The exporter is implemented as a native Prometheus exporter utilizing the prometheus-client library. It operates using two threads: one handles fetching the vulnerability data, parsing EPSS feeds, and cross-referencing installed packages to identify local vulnerabilities; the second handles serving the metrics endpoint. The full architecture details and metrics specifications can be found in the design doc. The specification was drafted during a technical brainstorming session with Claude 4.6 Sonnet on Antigravity prior to writing the implementation.
Testing and Dashboarding To validate the exporter, I spun up older Debian 11 and Debian 12 cloud images sourced from the Debian Cloud team. The older image was intentionally selected to guarantee a standard baseline of unpatched vulnerabilities for testing. The local evaluation topology is structured as shown below: Rather than constructing the Grafana dashboard from scratch, I used Claude 4.6 Sonnet via Antigravity to generate the layout configuration. The generated dashboard for the local testbed functions effectively: The complete, ready-to-import Grafana dashboard configuration is included directly in the debvulns source code.
Renaming the project To prevent namespace conflicts and confusion with the native debsecan utility in Debian, I have unified the ecosystem under the debvulns moniker. The core CLI is named debvulns, the exporter is debvulns-exporter, and the MCP component is debvulns-mcp. The migration release has been published to PyPI, and the new consolidated repository is active at debvulns.
Conclusion While this began as a personal utility to fill a niche tool gap, I expect it will be useful for others managing Debian infrastructure at scale. My next objective is to formalize Debian packaging for both the CLI and the exporter. The MCP component will likely remain available as an independent artifact. Until then, happy hacking. Note: As a core design choice, debvulns still uses native debsecan as its ground-truth standard. The tool continuously cross-verifies its output against debsecan to ensure perfect functional parity and data consistency.

11 July 2026

Reproducible Builds: Reproducible Builds in June 2026

Welcome to the June 2026 report from the Reproducible Builds project! In these reports, we 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. If you are interested in contributing to the project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. In this month s report, we cover:

  1. Only installing reproducible packages with repro-threshold
  2. Distribution work
  3. diffoscope development
  4. From our mailing list
  5. Documentation updates
  6. Patches
  7. Four new scholarly papers


Only installing reproducible packages with repro-threshold A very interesting demonstration is now available showing how you might configure your Debian system to only install packages that have been reproduced by m/n rebuilders. This is implemented via a reproduced+https:// APT transport ( a mechanism for communicating between the APT client and its repository source commonly HTTP):
Every package download is intercepted by repro-threshold, which queries two independent rebuilders for a signed attestation before allowing installation to proceed. [It] is important to note that [an] install will only succeed if all package dependencies are also reproducible.
The demo gives examples of how to quickly experiment with this using a Docker container.

Distribution work In Debian this month: The IzzyOnDroid Android APK repository reached its next milestone this month, now covering 2 out of every 3 apps (66.7%) with reproducible builds. Their documentation for debugging and fixing failed builds has steadily grown as well. More clients have picked up showing reproducibility results (e.g. Droid-ify), and Neo Store now can be configured to stick to only reproducible applications. Further, an independent builder has been added to the build farm, increasing the trust level even more as APK builds can have multiple confirmations now. At the same time, IzzyOnDroid s rbtlog got several new features. The most outstanding is caching for frequently used resources such as reproducible-apk-tools, command-line tools and NodeJS in order to counter ongoing issues with GitHub availability, while at the same time saving bandwidth and build time. This change also enables some other some smaller enhancements such as being able to configure build timeouts per recipe for those builds running longer than the average, release pattern filtering for update checks or having a field for maintainer notes to shortly summing up e.g. why a reproducible build failed.
Lastly, Bernhard M. Wiedemann posted another openSUSE monthly update for their reproducibility work there.

diffoscope development diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made the following changes, including preparing and uploading versions 319, 320, 321, 322 and 323 to Debian:
  • Debian adds an extra Flags: line in the output of ocamlobjinfo, so adjust the test for cross-distribution compatibility. [ ]
  • Bump debhelper compatibility level to 14. [ ]
  • Fix compatibility with Ocaml 5.4.1. [ ]
  • Use --long-form-style arguments when calling apktool in order to support apktool version 3. [ ]
  • Support Androguard version 4 and previous versions at the same time. [ ]
  • Update copyright years. [ ]
In addition, Jochen Sprickerhof added better header detection for the Sphinx documentation system [ ], Michael Daniels fixed the tests when run with zipdetails version 4.006 [ ] and Zbigniew J drzejewski-Szmek added a version of the deprecated os.path.commonprefix method [ ]. In addition, Vagrant Cascadian updated diffoscope in GNU Guix to version 321 and 323.
Chris Lamb also made the following changes to strip-nondeterminism, our tool to remove specific non-deterministic results from a completed build:
  • Skip symlinks when manually called via /usr/bin/strip-nondeterminism. (#1139000)
  • Update debian/watch format. [ ]
  • Drop Rules-Requires-Root: no and Priority: optional fields. [ ]
  • Bump Standards-Version to version 4.7.4. [ ]

From our mailing list On our mailing list this month:
  • kpcyrd posted to our mailing list regarding the waves of malware uploads to aur.archlinux.org . Curiously, every incident I looked at used npmjs.com for malware delivery , specifically where the npm package includes an (automatically executed) preinstall script that is an ELF binary.
  • kpcyrd also announced the release of debian-repro-status version 0.4.0, a tool written to give you an approximate idea of how viable it would be to enforce a reproducible packages only update policy for the computer system you ve built :
    The change updates dependencies to the latest versions, and adds support for multiple -H options, to query results from multiple rebuilderd instances. The results are also now fetched concurrently.
  • kpcyrd also reported that, whilst taking a screenshot for the above release, they noticed that the debian:sid container now is 100% reproducible.
  • Finally, kpcyrd also created a pull request against the add-determinism package to update the itertools and zip Python dependencies.

Documentation updates Yet again, there were a number of improvements made to our website this month including:
  • Chris Lamb added a reminder re. using the UTC variants of the Javascript Date methods. [ ]
  • Mattia Rizzolo moved OTF to the old sponsors list. Thank you for your support!. [ ]
  • kpcyrd updated the Rust documentation to recommend using the --release argument for consistency. [ ]

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:

Four new scholarly papers Kenichiro Muto and Kuniyasu Suzaki of the Institute of Information Security in Yokohama, Japan published an interesting paper this month titled Attestable Build Chain: Enabling Trust in Reproducible Builds (PDF). Their abstract is as follows: Ensuring trust in software supply chains requires verifying not only artifacts but also the processes that produce them. Although Reproducible Builds (R-B) require rebuilding to validate artifacts, they cannot verify whether the build was executed with the intended toolchain and inputs and may reproduce unintended or compromised builds without detection. We present Attestable Build Chain, a framework for externally verifying build-time execution without rebuilding. Rather than preventing compromise, it provides verifiable, tamper-evident evidence of actual build-time execution, enabling verification of build process integrity from observed file accesses during the build. [ ]
Julien Malka, Stefano Zacchiroli and Th o Zimmermann published a 50-page report detailing A Decade of Software Reproducibility in the Nix Package Ecosystem:
We find that functional package management enables extremely high rebuildability over time (near-universal ability to reconstitute historical build environments and rebuild software packages), while bitwise reproducibility has steadily improved and reaches a high point in recent years (up to 93% in 2024). Early years show substantially lower bitwise reproducibility, indicating that functional package management alone does not guarantee bitwise-identical outputs, and that the observed high level of bitwise reproducibility is not solely due to the package management approach. Common causes of unreproducibility, both in the rebuildability and bitwise reproducibility dimensions, include management of dates in build and test processes; we quantify their prevalence and other common causes using manual analysis of logs of rebuild failures and automated analysis of diffoscope.
A PDF of their report is available online
Tim Bastin of L3montree GmbH and Jacek Galowicz of Applicative Systems GmbH from DevGuard published a paper detailing How We Built a Sovereign, Reproducible Container Supply Chain for DevGuard:
This paper presents how the DevGuard project rebuilt its OCI container pipeline around reproducible Nix builds and independent dual-platform digest verification. DevGuard images are built hermetically from pinned source revisions, signed with Sigstore/Cosign, and verified through digest comparison across GitHub Actions and sovereign GitLab infrastructure hosted on container.gov.de. We describe the practical integration of reproducible OCI image builds into existing CI/CD workflows and argue that independently reproducible container digests provide a stronger integrity guarantee against build tampering than provenance alone. The paper further discusses remaining trust assumptions and the relevance of sovereign build infrastructure for government and regulated environments.

Finally, Yiseul Choi, Junga Kim, Jun-Ho Hong and Seongmin Kim of the Department of Convergence Security Engineering at the Sungshin Women s University in Seoul, Korea titled Attestation-based verification of SBOM integrity via consumer-side reproducibility:
Software bills of materials (SBOMs) support supply chain transparency, but they do not prove that a delivered SBOM reproducibly corresponds to its software artifact. Existing signing and provenance mechanisms protect integrity and traceability, yet lack consumer-side reproducible verification. We propose an SBOM integrity verification framework combining procedure disclosure, consumer-side reproduction, authority-generated reference evidence, and digest comparison. A trusted authority records a reference digest, and consumers compare it with locally reproduced and delivered SBOM digests. Experiments on 100 real-world container images show detection of artifact tampering, SBOM substitution, distribution modification, and adaptive tampering beyond signature-based approaches


Finally, if you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. However, you can get in touch with us via:

Jamie McClelland: DNS, OG of high availability

At May First, we recently received (all within a single week) three different complaints about domain names that previously worked fine suddenly not resolving to our servers. While that isn t terribly uncommon, we discovered that in each case, the domain name s authoritative name servers were pointing to our mail servers (a.mx.mayfirst.org, b.mx.mayfirst.org and c.mx.mayfirst.org) instead of our name servers (a.ns.mayfirst.org, b.ns.mayfirst.org and c.ns.mayfirst.org). The weird part: this mistaken configuration was happening at the registrar level, protected by each member s own credentials that we don t have access to. Each affected member fixed their records to resolve the problem but also made very clear that they had not logged into their registrar in years, sugggesting that the DNS authoritative records in their registrar accounts spontaneously changed on their own. The first time was weird, the second time could possibly be a coincidence? But by the third time this happened, we started to panic. How could registrar records spontaneously change? All three domain names were registered with different companies - so it couldn t be a single registrar problem? Are we going to get a flood of these complaints? What is going on!?!? We did an inventory to see if this was happening with other domain names in use by our membership and that s when we discovered just how hard it is for our mostly non-technical users to set a domain s authoritative name servers. The error rate was less than 1% but still that was a lot of domain names with typos: That s when it occurred to me: for years we have maintained an offsite server that provides both c.ns.mayfirst.org and c.mx.mayfirst.org. It hangs out in case something terrible happens to our main colo. The week before we started receiving these complaints, I separated these services, moving c.mx.mayfirst.org to a dedicated MX server. As a result, these two domain names stopped pointing to the same IP address. And that s when the complaints started rolling in. In other words: the affected members set the incorrect name servers years ago, but because just one of the name servers resolved to an IP that happened to provide the correct authoritative lookup services, it went undeteced all this time. So mystery solved. Nobody s authoritative registrar records suddenly changed. They were mis-configured for years but thanks to the amazing resilience of the DNS system, nobody noticed because just one working DNS server is all you need.

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RQuantLib 0.4.28 on CRAN: Small Update

A new minor release 0.4.28 of RQuantLib arrived on CRAN this evening, has been uploaded to Debian, and is being built for r2u as well. QuantLib is a rather comprehensice free/open-source library for quantitative finance. RQuantLib connects (some parts of) it to the R environment and language, and has been part of CRAN for nearly twenty-three years (!!) as it was one of the first packages I uploaded to CRAN. This release of RQuantLib brings a minor update to the calendars for Israel which in QuantLib 1.43 can now use one of three different exchange choices. However, using settlement is now deprecated so we adjusted our code. This came up as we had packaged the 1.43-rc version of the (upcoming) 1.43 release a few days ago, and it is now in testing requiring RQuantLib to catch up. Full details from the NEWS file follow as usual.

Changes in RQuantLib version 0.4.28 (2026-07-10)
  • Adjust to Israel calendar constructor change in QuantLib 1.43
  • Continuous integration uses ccache-with-R action

Courtesy of my CRANberries, there is also a diffstat report for the this release. As always, more detailed information is on the RQuantLib page. Questions, comments etc should go to the rquantlib-devel mailing list. Issue tickets can be filed at the GitHub repo.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can now sponsor me at GitHub.

10 July 2026

Jonathan Dowland: Bauer Fly30 ice skates

I used to ice skate as a teenager but I stopped at University. I tried to pick it back up in 2024 but had to stop when I got ill. I restarted in 2025, initially with a weekly skate session but last month I started group hockey skate lessons.
IR photo of me skating There's not a lot of pics of me skating this one from an IR camera
I've been skating in a pair of Bauer1 Nexus N77s that I bought 7 years ago on a work trip to Toronto. These did a great job of getting me back into the hobby for 6 years but recently I felt it was time to step up to a better quality pair. Despite being a size down from my shoe size, the Nexuses are too large: I had been compensating with thick socks but still struggling to get the boots tight enough. I'd have to wear gloves to lace up because I'd cut my hands pulling the laces otherwise. After too long researching/deliberating/kvetching (very much on trend for me) I upgraded to Bauer Vapor Fly30s another half-size down (and nearly ten times as much). The fit is much better, in almost every respect. They actually go on easier and I don't have to tear my hands tightening the laces. They feel like a natural extension of my feet. I seem to be using a different set of muscles to skate, so the first few sessions were very fatiguing, but that settled. The Vapor line is speed-oriented, which I thought would fit my skate style best.
new and old skates new and old skates
I have unfortunately gained a common problem: arch pain. More precisely, my navicular bone seems to be quite prominent2, and that part is pressing uncomfortably into the boot. Boots typically take a few sessions to break in, but after 7-8 sessions the pain was getting to the stage that I couldn't skate for a full session without being in agony. The last time I skated I tried to throw everything at the problem: I'd had the skates baked3; bought some orthotic insoles; then some "Bunga" pads over the sore bit and an attempt to more loosely tie the laces over the affected area. I tried a ten minute skate, and it seemed a bit better. I then tried experimentally to swap back to my old skates, and I felt like Bambi: I just couldn't do it! They didn't press on the navicular, and they're softer so you can compensate for the size with tight lacing, but I had no confidence in them, I couldn't lean into the turns. They just felt weird. I realised there's no way back. I switched back to the fly30s, adjusted the bunga pad positioning, tweaked the lacing and went back on for about 40 minutes. It went well: the rink was quiet, it was cool whilst we had a heat wave outside, so I worked up a sweat. By the end there was some discomfort, but not too much, and I think partly the area is currently sensitive so just about anything will cause discomfort. Fingers (or toes) crossed that I've mitigated the problem! If not, it might be time to try a punch out.

  1. I've owned four pairs of skates: all hockey, my first were Bauers, my second CCM Tacks of some kind. I've no idea what happened to them.
  2. Or possibly I have accessory navicular bones
  3. modern mid-tier skates are thermoformable, and many skate shops carry a specially designed oven to briefly bake skates such that you wear them as they cool and the padding should mould to your foot.

Junichi Uekawa: July already.

July already. Wow. It's getting to be a summer.

Bits from Debian: New Debian Developers and Maintainers (May and June 2026)

The following contributors got their Debian Developer accounts in the last two months: The following contributors were added as Debian Maintainers in the last two months: Congratulations!

Valhalla's Things: Cockades!

Posted on July 10, 2026
Tags: madeof:atoms, FreeSoftWear, craft:sewing
six cockades in black, grey, white, purple, in different sizes and with different centrepieces. One is only black and white and has a penguin pin in the middle. Earlier this year, I made myself a new hat (it will be blogged), and I wanted to put a nice cockade on it. So, I looked for suitable ribbons, and couldn t find any. I found some ribbon that looked passable, but the colours I wanted weren t available, so I set up the website to notify me, and kept working on the hat. Eventually the hat was done, the ribbon was still not available, so I decorated the hat with fake flowers from my stash, and started wearing it. And that s when I got notified that the ribbon was back in stock. By the time the ribbon arrived, I had decided that the hat looked better with the flowers, and project cockade was put on hold, possibly for a future hat. And then June came, and what could be a better time than that for a project based on flag colours? As I feared, the ribbon I got wasn t the best: it was a bit too stiff and plasticy, and not really usable for many other things. It did however work well enough for a cockade, and I decided it was a good chance to try different methods and designs, and then make another one to take pictures and publish step-by-step instructions. And that s the perfect recipe to find oneself surrounded by a somewhat unreasonable number of very similar cockades, I guess. A big cockade with four ribbons, starting with purple on the outside, and a black bead in the middle covering the centre of the black ribbon. The pleating isn't the most regular, and the black ribbon at the centre is almost more gathered than pleated. I looked around for instructions, and the ones that gave a result that was closer to my mental idea of a cockade were the ones by American Duchess, so on my first attempt I tried to follow those. I didn t have a cork board with a hole, so it was a bit fiddly, and the result was passable, but could have been better. Meanwhile I saw a forum post commenting on the above tutorial and that gave me ideas for a procedure more suitable to the tools I had. A cockade with tree ribbons, starting with purple on the outside, then white, grey, and a black bead in the middle that is a bit bigger than the one on the previous one. The pleating isn't perfect, but neater than the previous one. The second cockade I made was indeed more satisfactory, and I also started to experiment with making a center piece with ribbons, to cut down on the types of materials needed. On this one I also tried to add a pin backing, so that I could write instructions on how to do it in what I believe is a more stable way than simply adding it to the felt backing at the end. I m not sure whether the other ones will be tacked to a hat, and thus won t require pins at all, or if I ll just put them on some dress with pins hidden under the ribbon layers. A cockade with three ribbons, starting with black on the outside, then grey and white, and a flat pentagonal knot of purple ribbon at the centre. And then I was ready to make a third cockade, taking step by step pictures for my website, and I planned to start on it the next morning. Trenord had different ideas. Thanks to the combination of independent but complete disruptions on two nearby train lines, I spent the morning driving a couple of people to the nearest station that was still being served by trains, and then back home less than 10 minutes before I had to start working, which if you ask1 me was pretty homophobic of the train company. There was way less traffic than I expected, and I did enjoy the drive 2, but for various reasons it meant a significant delay for this post. Anyway, less than a week later than I had planned, halfway in June I managed to publish step by step instructions on my website, but I wasn t done with the project yet. Beside the fact that I still needed to finish sewing the backing felt to the cockades I had done, I also had a few ideas for more centrepieces made of ribbon I wanted to try. And this means that I moved on to another project that was already in progress (this one will also be blogged). A cockade with three ribbons, starting with black on the outside, then grey and white, and two squares of purple ribbon at the centre, forming a sort of eight point star. The ribbons are box pleated and this gives the cockade a bit more of a tree-dimensional shape. After I ve finished that one, at the very end of June I quickly made the last two centrepieces, taking pictures for the instructions, and in the next few days I also finished the cockades. A cockade with three ribbons, starting with purple on the outside, then white and grey, and an hexagonal shape made of black ribbon at the centre. The ribbons are again box pleated. This time, instead of plain pleats I tried to use box pleats, and I quite like the look they give, so if in the future I ll have a need for more cockades I may use again this pleating pattern. A cockade with just two gathered ribbons, starting with black on the outside, then white, and a linux.it pin in the middle with a black background and two eyes and an orange beak reminding of a penguin. For the last cockade I wanted to try two things: putting a pin in the middle as a centrepiece, and gathering the ribbons. For the pin, I found that the only one I had that had a colour scheme compatible with the ribbons I had was one with the penguin from linux.it, which had a black background, so I put black ribbon on the outside and white next to it for contrast. And gathering was done with a whipped gather with ribbons that were one and a half times the outer circumference of their slot, and looks decent enough, but I think I prefer the look of pleated cockades a lot. Maybe it would look better with a softer ribbon. Anyway, I think this is plenty of cockades for the time being, unless I get tempted by buying more colours of ribbon to make different ones. But I m not making an online purchase just for those. I am not.

  1. you probably shouldn t.
  2. also thanks to my partner who, on entering the destination town, told me to stop on the big, straight, two-way road with plenty of roundabouts to turn around, and went through the maze of one-way streets to the station by foot.

9 July 2026

Jonathan Dowland: Korg Minilogue XD Desktop Module

I bought a new synth! Kind-of. I've traded my Minilogue-XD (full-size version with integrated keyboard) for the desktop/modular alternative.
Modular Minilogue XD Modular Minilogue XD
Why? Partly, because it fits on my desk better. Partly, because it changes the way you engage with the instrument. It makes a huge difference: the ivory keys come with so much cultural precedent. The module version of the synth gains a switch that lets you use the 16 sequencer step buttons as note inputs, so you can still play the thing solo. But the emphasis moves away from note generation and more firmly towards tone. Both versions have a lovely stained wood back, which you never see; the modular one has a hint of that at the front as well (which you do see). I plan to eventually buy a MIDI keyboard that could drive it, and other things: possibly an Arturia KeyStep or Minilab, but there's no rush on that. (It's about time I recorded and shared something I produced on this)

7 July 2026

Thorsten Alteholz: My Debian Activities in June 2026

Debian LTS/ELTS This was my hundred-forty-fourth month that I did some work for the Debian LTS initiative, started by Raphael Hertzog at Freexian. During my allocated time I uploaded or worked on: Besides fixing all CVEs of asterisk in Bullseye, I started to look at asterisk in other releases as well. Rather surprisingly asterisk is only part of Unstable and Bullseye. All other releases don t include any version of asterisk at all. So first things first, besides some security related RC bugs, asterisk did not migrate due to RC-bugs in dahdi-linux. As I maintain osmocom-dahdi-linux (which supports less/other hardware), I looked at the open issues and after some rounds I could upload a new upstream version, fixed some bugs and resolved issues with piuparts. dahdi-linux meanwhile migrated to testing, job done!
As a next step I looked at the open CVEs. Some of them had been already fixed in previous uploads but had not been marked accordingly. So I fixed all remaining ones and sent a debdiff to the maintainer. Unfortunately there was some kind of overlap in our work and he ignored my debdiff but uploaded a new upstream version. Anyway, job done as well, no open security issues anymore. The only thing that hinders asterisk from migrating to testing is the reproducible build. So if anybody has some spare time Other things I worked on were the regression update of rsync. Some of the elven new patches need to be backported, but I am confidentially to finish this month. I already reviewed the rsync uploads of Sylvain to Buster and Stretch, so I don t expect any big hurdles here. I am also making progress to find the correct patches for hplip and cups. Debian Printing This month I uploaded a new upstream versions: This work is generously funded by Freexian! Debian Lomiri This month new upstream versions of dozens of lomiri packages have been released and I uploaded lots of them to Debian. After they migrate to testing, I am also going to sync them to the Ubuntu PPA. This work is generously funded by Fre(i)e Software GmbH! Debian Astro This month I uploaded a new upstream version or a bugfix version of: Debian IoT This month I uploaded a new upstream version or a bugfix version of: Debian Mobcom This month I uploaded a new upstream version or a bugfix version of: misc This month I uploaded a new upstream version or a bugfix version of:

6 July 2026

Aigars Mahinovs: How to make a good group photo

Taking a good group photo consists of multiple aspects: I can say with confidence that nearly everything here comes from having failed to do these things right at least once, even on the latest attempts, so this is an ideal to reach towards, not something we expect to hit every time. The Goal The main goal of a big event group photo is capture both the moment itself and each individual person inside that moment. We want people, who were not there to see all the people involved and get an impression of what it was like being there. It needs to show the breadth and depth of people that make up this group, this project. And we want people who were there to be able to look back the next week, the next year or in ten years and remember - ah, yes, I was there, I was standing right there with this grin on my face next to this wonderful person and I was feeling great. Hardware Based on the goal we want to have high level photographic gear that is able to capture both a broad enough picture to encompass all the people and some of their surroundings to communicate the context (without undue distortions) and to deliver enough detail and resolution so that faces and facial expressions and underlying feelings of every single person in that group could be clearly seen and preserved. To both capture the context and minimise distortion the final picture should be just a bit wider than normal human field of view. That is about 50mm for a full-frame camera or 35mm for a typical 1.6 crop camera. You can go a bit wider if there are no better alternatives (as detailed in the scouting section), but be prepared that corners of the image will be distorted and not really usable (but we can fix that in processing step). Or you can go to unusual aspect ratios, like we did in Debconf 10. In the absence of a 100MP+ camera, you will need to be stitching together multiple frames to achieve resolution high enough to have enough pixels-per-face to see emotions clearly. This means that the photos you will actually be taking will be tighter than the overall field of view mentioned above. Still, a higher resolution camera body is preferable - nowadays 24MP-32MP cameras APS-C provide a good compromise between resolution and price, but 45-67MP full-frame cameras also exist on the market. Assume that we will be shooting in a bright environment, so most likely with quite low ISO settings, that means that high-ISO noise characteristics of more expensive cameras will not really play a role here. You will also not need very fast burst modes, even manual speed of one frame per second is sufficient. You will also want to get as much detail as possible out of your lens, and this is the most important part. You can do amazing work in all other steps of the process and have a great camera too, but if you pair it with a lens that is not sharp, then the end result will be disappointing. You want the lens that is sharpest corner-to-corner when stepped down to about f/8-f/11, that you can get for your system. You also want that lens to be about 85mm full-size sensor or 50mm for 1.6 crop size. Luckily that kind of range is also a great range for optical design and sharpest lenses are typically available in exactly these kinds of sizes. You absolutely want to have a fixed focal length lens, not a zoom lens. Even profession grade zoom lenses often deliver worse image quality compared to fixed lenses that cost less 1/10th of their price (when shooting in the same focal length). Newer design lenses are better than older lenses - optical design, coatings and precision manufacturing have advanced a lot over the decades. Retro look is great for mood, but not as good for actual resolution and clarity. You don't need to overpay for most expensive lenses because those often only improve image quality on lower F-stops. To encompass the whole group we will need to shoot at f/8 and in bright light, so the extra benefits of those f/1.2-capable super expensive lenses will not come into play here. We will have no use for a flash here. A tripod will be too restrictive when rapidly repositioning the camera between different parts of the panorama shoot. But a monopod might help with stability - I have not tried that myself, however. For my last photos I used a Canon EOS R7 (32.5MP) with Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens and considering an upgrade to Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN for the next time. Scouting Scouting a good location for the group photo is another big chunk of a successful picture. The critical piece of the puzzle is lens-to-face distance. In order to keep everyone's face in-focus and have enough resolution on the farthest faces (without making nearest faces truly massive) we want to do everything possible to reduce the variance in lens-to-face distance - to reduce the difference in distance between closest and farthest face. The most effective way to do that is to have the photographer climb higher. To see this in action on the Debconf photos, compare Debconf6 (very high camera position, group on level ground - good) to Debconf10 (camera not too high, group on stairs, still good) and to Debconf17 (camera could not get high enough and the group is on flat ground - not great). Even the Debconf25 photo was suboptimal from this perspective. The Debconf23 photo was a very good example from the recent years - good height and also the group was positioned in a semi-circle so there were no people directly in front and very near to the camera. So you are looking for the highest point you could get to (even if that requires a special permission of key or a ladder) with a field large enough to fit the whole group comfortably. How to check that? Normally I simply take a photo from the top of the whole area and note down from there where the extreme corners of the group could be and still be fully seen in the shot - not blocked by trees, buildings and shadows. Then I go down and measure that space. Rule of thumb being - people in one horizontal line can stand 1 normal length step from each other and two horizontal lines can be half a step from each other vertically. So I can just measure a rough rectangle in steps, multiply the sides, multiply that by two and I have the rough number of people that can fit there for the photo. Once you have a candidate location or two, it is important to check them at the same time-of-day as you plan to do the photo (see organization section for that). You want to make sure that the whole area of the group is in the same illumination - if half of the group is in the sun and half in a shadow, then you will be having a very bad time later. The absolute ideal positioning for the group photo is to have everyone be in shadow, but still have enough bright skies and bright buildings in front of the people to give good illumination of the faces. Worst you can do is have the sun be behind the people (so all the faces are really dark) and second worst is have the sun be directly in front of the group, so that the faces are very well illuminated, but everyone's eyes are closed because they are being blinded by the sun. And sometimes all you can do is pray for some light clouds to provide for even and dispersed light. Debconf23 was very lucky that way. Another consideration is to how people are going to get to that place. You need to consider accessibility needs of people (it is ok, if it takes more effort or time, but it needs to be organized and communicated well in advance). And you need to consider how the big masses of people will be getting there - how to tell people where exactly it is and how to get there from various locations where people might be hanging out during the event? Having an alternate location indoors might be necessary if the weather report for the next days is not sufficiently predictable. We had to use that contingency in Debconf9, for example. Organization It's hard to take a good group photo if half of the group does not show up or is too late, so this needs some organization to happen smoothly. First of all you need to choose date and time for the photo. The photo does not take too much time from the schedule of the event and can be squeezed in after all the other events are already scheduled. In fact I prefer that as it allows you the flexibility of choosing the date based on weather conditions and time based on light and shadow conditions in potential photo spots. You don't want to choose the daytrip day as most people will be away and return times are not really predictable. You do not want to choose the morning after Cheese and Wine party for obvious reasons. First day and last two days are also sub-optimal as some people arrive late and some leave early for various personal reasons. Also you don't want it to happen just before Cheese and Wine either because then you'd have very little time and clarity to do the processing of the image on the same day. For timing, the best way, in my experience, is to schedule the photo directly after the end of talk sessions before a meal break - lunch or dinner. Typically in the Debconf schedule there are 2-3 daily breaks planned, say for Debconf25 there was lunch, afternoon break and dinner. Talks are planned to end ~10 minutes before those breaks (and meals) begin, so for example, afternoon break starts at 16:00 and all talks in the previous block end at 15:50. In such a case just schedule the "Group photo" event from 15:50 to 16:05. This gives people the info to go there directly from the end of all talks and that they will have sufficient time for break/meal afterwards. Do not forget to specify the location (as exactly as possible) in that event entry and make sure to post it at least two days in advance. People often want to wear something specific for the photo and thus need to know about it in advance. This also makes sure that people do not make alternate food plans for that specific break and don't leave the venue. Announce the date, time and the exact location as wide as possible, don't be shy. Announce and discuss mailing lists, IRC, Signal, Telegram, make sure the front desk knows in case anyone asks in-person, ... Check that it is again included in the announcements email on the day preceding the photo date. When the date has arrived, it is a good idea to check in early with people with special mobility needs to make sure they know where to go, how to get there and how much time they will need to be able to get there on time. As the final round of talks before the group photo is starting up, it is time to recruit "runners". I've had great success with this technique. The idea is pretty simple - for each room where people congregate (talk rooms, hacklabs, cafeteria, outside hackspace, front-desk, ...) go there and choose one person. You want to choose a person that you will recognise and remember among everyone else in the group, either because of who they are or what they are wearing, whatever works best for you. If they agree to help, instruct them to: "at end of talk, announce that the group photo happening now and the location, herd people towards the photo location, be the last person out, make sure there are no stragglers from this area behind you, when you arrive to the photo place I will assume that everyone else from this room is also now there, when you are there catch my attention and show this sign so I know for sure that it is all good and make sure that I did see it from you". With that sorted out all you will need to remember is how many runners you recruited and how many have reported in to figure out if everyone has now arrived or if we still have to wait for someone or some group. Then you will only have one last point of organization left - shaping the crowd into a group. People will not know what your vision for the group photo is, so you will have to give clear and LOUD instructions on where people should not be standing. Use clear, large gestures to support your words. You want to compact the group, have the people that just joined in the last moment and are standing to the side come deeper in and join the crowd. Have any holes in the middle of the crowd filled in. Forming a semi-circle instead of a blob helps with averaging face-to-lens distances. Make sure people are not in unexpected shadows. Make sure carried objects, like umbrellas of flags do not cover the faces of other people. Take the time to look at everyone face to make sure there are no people hiding behind someone's shoulder - typically they are not aware that their face is in fact not really visible. If there are such people, call them out and point directly at them and encourage them to step forward, if they wish to do so. You are the only one seeing the final picture now and only you can correct it before capturing the moment. So a few extra seconds here are worth taking, even if 300+ people are standing in scorching heat and waiting on you. When you are happy with what you are seeing, make sure to tell people clearly that you are now about to take the pictures and again remind them not to move and explicitly not to turn their heads to the side until you are done (this is the source of most of the extra work in processing). Be very loud and clear and make sure you have everyone's undivided attention before you start saying the important stuff. When done - say so. There will be other groups that will want to also have a photo taken after the main group is a bit more dispersed, so don't run away. Typically at least the T-shirt group will want a picture and also all the organizers. Final bit of organization during the group photo shooting itself is the sneaky self-insert. You may choose not to bother with it, or do it in the simplest way, like I did in Debconf6, but if you really want to blend in with the crowd, you need to have someone else take a photo of you in the exact same location at the same date and time from the same location. So you should already during shaping the crowd decide where you would fit in, it is easiest to blend in at the back of the crowd and to one or other side, so that it appears like you are just standing behind the shoulders of a couple peoples. Remember that spot - it is easiest if you stand in the exact same ground spot when your photo is taken. Just go down, recruit a volunteer to take your photo, make sure the settings are fixed to the same ones as for the group photo shots and have them take a handful of shots of you - one of you centered in the camera frame and a couple more with you more towards the corners of the frame. This distortion from being off-center in the frame may be important later. Preparation In addition to preparing the crowd for the photo, you also need to prepare yourself and the equipment. Make sure you have dusted your camera sensor and cleaned both inside and outside glass of your lens. It is usually a good idea to remove any filters from the lens. Install the hood, if that could help with blocking the sun flares. Make sure you have the right lens and that you have installed the right lens. For fixed settings I typically shoot in JPEG with RAW being there more like an emergency backup. The extra dynamic range of RAW could be used, but it is really complex to do that in combination with image blending and it is hard to get right, so I prefer an all-JPEG workflow and fix the dynamic range in the scene itself, before shooting. For Canon I am using the Standard profile that boosts the color saturation and sharpness a bit as I just enjoy that look and find it hard to get anything significantly better from RAW data even with a lot of effort. In any case make sure you have enough space on the cards to take at least 100 images and that you have a full battery. Do not use high speed burst setting because it is then too easy to take too many pictures at the start of the sequence and be stuck with your camera still in "Busy" state writing big RAW files to slowish SD cards and not allowing you to finish the full picture rapidly. You want to have the shutter speed at at least 1/100th of a second to prevent blur from both your hand movements and also from people in the shot moving around a bit (image stabilisation will not help you there). And you want to have the aperture to be around f/8 - lower apertures risk people in front or behind falling out of focus, make the lenses look less sharp. Higher apertures also start to become less sharp due to diffraction effects above f/8. ISO should stay as low as possible, ideally at ISO 100, but if there is not enough light then upping the ISO to 400 would be the first step that I would try to do and second would be decreasing the aperture to f/5.6. If there is too much light, then increasing the shutter speed should be the safe thing to do. As people start to arrive into the shooting location - check the exposure and nail down the settings, ideally in manual mode. Consider that left side could be a bit lighter or darker than right side. Err on the side of making the picture a bit too dark as there is more depth to darkness before cut-off compared to clipping on the high end. However, do not trust the exposure detection, instead take a picture and look specifically at skin tones in faces of people that already are standing in the photo area. Faces are the key bit and the exposure needs to be adjusted just to the faces and ignore darker of lighter clothing. Do some test shots and find settings where faces look not too bright, but also not very dark and fix those settings in manual mode. Now you are ready for the action. Shape the crowd, check the faces and the action can start! Execution During taking of the group photo you want to finish it fast, but at the same time you have to take the time to make it right. If you hurry too much under pressure, you risk being left with unusably blurry images and the whole effort wasted. Having already prepared and verified the manual settings makes it easier. When you are taking pictures, you have to remain as still as possible - even at very high shutter speeds even slow hand movements are still bad for image quality. So think of the movement as of biathlon athlete shooting the very middle of five, very separate targets - take a burst, reframe, then steady up for a second and only then take the next burst. 3 frames per burst are sufficient. 90% of the time the very first photo of a burst will be best. As you move from frame to frame, aim for just a bit more than half-frame overlap. This will give the opportunity to skip frames if all is good, but also have backup coverage of every face in case of problems. Proceed systematically, I typically start off on the top left of the crowd, then go right until the end of the line, then shift down half a frame and go left until the end and repeat until I am done with the crowd. After that it is very helpful to also immediately take photos of a "frame" around the whole crowd. Stitching process often distorts the frames in weird ways that leave holes in the resulting image that you can fill if you have a wide frame around the crowd. It is possible to compensate with creative cutouts in the final image (like Debconf9), but the more framing room you make, the more flexible you will be able to be with cropping of the final photo. The frame also gives you the opportunity to capture more of the context of the place and space. As an example, Debconf25 group photo in the end consisted from 9 images + 1 for sick people + 1 for me. I ended up missing the framing shots for bottom left, top left and top right corners. To get there I took 68 images. And in some years it was more than a hundred. Processing This part might be less stressful than taking the pictures from intensity perspective, but it lasts longer. Depending on you luck, skill and perfectionism it can take anywhere from 3 to 9 hours of work to complete. Before you start, however, you should first request things that you will need for other people. This can even be done before taking the actual group photo, but usually I forget. To finish the photo you will need three things: The first two you should be able to get from the respective organizers. The motto is harder. I typically try to ask the current DPL to come up with something describing the current mood of the project or of the event, but it is rare that it is that easy. Most of the time I came up with something as I was editing the photo and reflecting on what was the mood, the feeling, the mojo of this conference and of this year was like. Bend that around a recognisable phrase or expression, make it a bit more insider-relevant and you are on the right path. Some years this was the hardest part. For the panorama stitching I will describe the workflow that has served me good for years, but maybe there are better ways possible nowadays. Feel free to let me know! First I would save all photos taken and select one sharpest photo from every burst. Next I would select the minimal number of photos that appear to be covering the entire crowd. The fewer images you use, the better in the end because the most quality problems crop up in the areas where photos are getting stitched together. Fewer seams leads to fewer issues. Open Hugin (you will also need enblend and enfuse installed) and import your minimal set of images into it. Click the "Align" button and wait a while - the processor will be trying to figure out keypoints in each image and then try to match these points between the images to try to fit them all together into a single projection. To do that it will distort the images. This is the trial and error process part. You may need to add, remove or replace images to get the stitching to work or to work better. You may want to add more of the frame images to fill the ragged holes around the image. After initial alignment, go to "Move/Drag" tab and move the image a bit up in the projected field of view and make it a bit more central visually. That will help a bit with the distortions in the near-by people and people in the corners of the image. In the "Crop" tab set the initial crop - leave it generous, you can always crop more in later steps. Do not be afraid of leaving in sizable chunks of black homes, empty skies or grass. All of that can be filled in later as well. Go back to the "Assistant" tab and click "Create panorama". It is good enough to have JPEG output at 100% quality using exposure corrected low dynamic range output option. Make sure to check the "Keep intermediate images" option. This will not only generate the final, merged panorama, but also keep around the individual images after perspective correction and exposure blending steps. These are critical for fixing blending error in the next step. You might need to go back a forth a few times with a different sets of source images, maybe adding some image between other two, maybe removing another to reach a better starting point. The key part to pay attention - how many ugly stitches are there in the image. Check every face, the blending algorithms do not recognise faces and sometimes try to stitch one face from two or more images creating very weird effects. They can be fixed in the next step, but it is rather hard manual work, so the fewer such faces are in the blended image, the less work you will have. In some years I've managed to find a combination where all faces were good and in other years I had to manually fix 13-15 faces. Do not try to blend the extra pictures (like with you or with sick people) into the main panorama with Hugin - it will get very confused with the parts of the grass that it is able to see where other people were standing. The next is the final processing in GIMP. Think of it like a large and complex project - do as much as possible in separate layers, save often. Fixing wrongly stitched faces and also putting yourself into the photo are very similar activities in the end. Just the scale and the source differ. For yourself you just cut out yourself (upper torso is enough) from the separate photo. For corrupted face, choose one of two intermediate images that the Hugin created where the face is transformed, but not yet merged (with a different version of itself). In either case crop the photo to roughly the interesting size and put roughly in the right spot as a separate layer on top of the group photo background. Reduce the opacity of the small layer to 30-40% and zoom in to 400%. With that it is much simpler to position the layer with pixel precision. Then all you need to do is add a layer mask to this layer and paint it just right. Basically in layer mask black means transparent and white means non-transparent. So you need to just make everything that is you have white mask and everything that is not you have black mask. And smudge the border a bit with finger tool or blur to make the transition smoother. Easy to say. Hard to do. This is what takes most of the actual work hours in post-processing. You might miss someone. I am sure Phill is just thrilled to see me in the very middle of the Debconf25 final picture .... But do try to fix them all. Use large, sweeping geometric figures to cover up black holes, empty grass fields and other sub-optimal corner features. And then use that newly created free space to put in a large version of the logo of this years conference, decently sized motto and slightly smaller invitation to the next years conference. Do not forget to add a copyright and license statement somewhere in the corner in smaller, but still well readable font. I am using a text like: "Photo by: Full Name, Email: fullemail@debian.org, License: GPLv2+ or CCv3-BY" This ensures that this image may be used in any press coverage (with basic attribution) and also can be included in any GPL-licensed software, if that ever comes up. The same statement is also in the metadata of the image file (see Image-Metadata-Edit metadata in GIMP) along with information that states that this is "Debian Developer Conference Group photo, City, Country, Year". Image->Image properties->Comment is another place where GIMP hides this EXIF information. For ease of use, in addition to a full-resolution image it is also useful to make a lower resolution version that would still fit on a 4K screen at full resolution, so about 3840px wide. Some photo hosting services set other limits for image size as well, so it might be needed to scale the image down below 100Mpix to upload it to Google Photos, for example. Publishing So, it is finally 1AM and the group photo is ready! How do you push it out to people? Well, in all possible ways and places. Again - don't be shy, people do really want to see it. Push it to whatever you use for your shared photos. Push it to Debconf shared git (note that this is GIT-LFS repo, make sure you know how to add content to the LFS specifically). All permanent links to that in GroupPhotosAll wiki. And then send those links to IRC, Signal, Telegram groups, debconf-announce mailing list. Publish it in your blog and push that to Debian Planet. Push it in Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon. Send an email separately to Debconf orga team. And one to Debian Publicity Team so they can put it into the Debian Home Page and push via Debian micronews accounts. And that is about it. Now you can go back to enjoying the rest of the conference. Or running around doing other things that you think need to be done. It's up to you. You did it. This moment will remain with people for a very long time. And you helped. Questions? Feedback? Just ask here or here.

5 July 2026

Dirk Eddelbuettel: Rcpp 1.1.2 on CRAN: Usual Improvements in Semi-Annual Update

rcpp logo Team Rcpp is excited to share that an brandnew new version 1.1.2 of Rcpp is now on CRAN, has also been uploaded to Debian, and has already built for r2u and r-universe; Windows etc builds at CRAN should follow in due course. Rcpp has long established itself as the most popular way of enhancing R with C or C++ code. Right now, 3236 packages on CRAN depend on Rcpp for making analytical code go faster and further. On CRAN, 13.4% of all packages depend (directly) on Rcpp, and 61.4% of all compiled packages do. From the cloud mirror of CRAN (which is but a subset of all CRAN downloads), Rcpp has been downloaded 121.6 million times. The two published papers (also included in the package as preprint vignettes) have, respectively, 2263 (JSS, 2011) and 471 (TAS, 2018) citations, while the the book (Springer useR!, 2013) has another 742. The is the second update in the 1.1.* series which had, among other changes, switched to C++11 as the minimum standard. This release continues as usual with the six-months January-July cycle started with release 1.0.5 in July 2020. Interim snapshots are always available via the r-universe page and repo. We continue to strongly encourage the use of these development released and their testing we tend to run our systems with them too. Having said that, we would like to reiterate that we strongly object to the upstream R release and change management which in this 4.6.* cycle made several abrupt changes forcing packages which consume header files to make very abrupt change. Rcpp, just like numerous other CRAN packages demonstrates that API changes can be undertaken responsibly in a managed manner which allows for transition periods followed by possible warning periods, deprecations periods and finally (but only at long last) errors. What happened here is a speed run to the final stage of forced errors. Uncool and irritating for something as widely used as R. This forced us to make an interim release 1.1.1-1.1 even though we have of course had a policy of always keeping properly tested, installable, and error-free releases candidate version in the main repository branch and hence available via R-universe tested packages for all relevant platforms, and even via binaries for most (including Ubuntu LTS). It would be nice if R Core found a way to take advantage of this. Maybe development cycles, running apart for a year as they do for R, should also include selected packages. Once again I am not attempting to summarize the different changes. The full list follows below and details all these changes, their respective PRs and, if applicable, issue tickets. Big thanks from all of us to all contributors!

Changes in Rcpp release version 1.1.2 (2026-07-01)
  • Changes in Rcpp API:
    • Use of execinfo.h is again conditional to avoid build complexity (Dirk in #1445 addressing #1442)
    • An internal state component for Datetime is now int (Dirk in #1448 and #1449 fixing #1447)
    • Three new (in R 4.6.0) attribute accessors are used conditionally (Dirk in #1450 closing #1432)
    • An UBSAN error in the Sugar-based NA comparison has been corrected (I aki in #1453 fixing #1452)
    • Treatment of Inf outside of integer range in Sugar function has been corrected (I aki in #1458 fixing #1455)
    • Integer overflow protection has been added for sugar functions (I aki in #1457 fixing #1454)
    • The parent environment is now accessed via R_ParentEnv (Dirk in #1460 fixing #1459)
    • Change to returning dataptr again for better handling of empty vectors (I aki in #1462 fixing #1461)
    • Undefined behavior errors in use of ListOf proxies have been addressed (I aki in #1464 fixing #1463)
    • Under newer R version, R_UnboundValue is no longer used (I aki in #1466 fixing #1465)
    • New R API access point R_getRegisteredNamespace() is used with current R versions (Dirk in #1469 fixing #1468)
    • The Nullable::as() exporter now uses an explicit cast to the templated type (Dirk in #1471 fixing #1470)
    • A memory leak in the variadic Rcpp::warning() template has been fixed (Kevin in #1475 fixing #1474)
    • The Nullable::operatorT() has been added as a 'opt-out' (Dirk in #1477 with coordination in #1472)
    • Add templated integer-index overload for operator[] on small systems such as WASM (Jeroen Ooms in #1482)
    • The attribute accessors in AttributeProxyPolicy no longer rely on get__() (Kevin in #1484 fixing #1483)
  • Changes in Rcpp Documentation:
    • Reference in the bibliography used by the package vignettes have been updated.
  • Changes in Rcpp Deployment:
    • Excute permissions are set consistently on scripts with shebangs (Mattias Ellert in #1467)
    • R 4.5.* has been added to the CI matrix (Dirk in #1476)
    • Three nag messages issued when obsolete build flag accessors are used now show Rcpp::: (Dirk in #1480 fixing #1456)
    • Reference GitHub Actions have been updated to their current versions (Dirk in #1481)
  • Non-release Changes:
    • A non-release hotfix 1.1.1-1 used by CRAN accommodates breaking changes to the API in R 4.6.0. It would be nice to have the same level of release management in R itself that CRAN expects from us.

Thanks to my CRANberries, you can also look at a diff to the previous interim release along with pre-releases 1.1.1-1 and 1.1.1-1.1 that were needed because R-devel once again sudden decided to move fast and break things. Not our doing. And there also should not have been a need to two such uploads but it was amateur hour all around. Questions, comments etc should go to the GitHub discussion or issue section, or the Rcpp list. Bugs reports are welcome at the GitHub issue tracker as well. GitHub offers decent search for issue, pull requests and discussions; as many topics have been covered it is worth checking as well.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

3 July 2026

Colin Watson: Free software activity in June 2026

My Debian contributions this month were all sponsored by Freexian. You can also support my work directly via Liberapay or GitHub Sponsors. Thanks to new sponsor @fernandocc17! bugs.debian.org documentation Sometimes I ask users to file bugs upstream themselves because I think they d be better placed to have the ensuing discussion with the upstream maintainers directly rather than everything having to go through me. Of course sometimes they don t want to do so, perhaps because it requires creating another account somewhere. Rarely, I ve had people refuse to do this because the letter of the bug tracking system s documentation seemed to tell them not to. Since I don t believe that was the intention, I corrected this. OpenSSH I spent two and a half hours extensively revising debian/copyright so that lrc believes it to be in sync with the output of licensecheck. I m unconvinced that this was remotely worth the mind-numbing effort - as far as I can tell, it makes no difference to the practical legal position, to policy compliance, or to any reasonable user - but the DFSG team increasingly seems to be objecting to any discrepancies here any time a package crosses their radar, so this was a pre-emptive measure to avoid problems with some upcoming trips through the NEW queue. OpenSSL 4.0 I fielded a few of the OpenSSL 4.0 build failure bugs: Python packaging New upstream versions: pytest 9.1 was uploaded to unstable this month, resulting in quite a few new build/test failure bugs. I tried to keep on top of as many of these as I could; most of them had one of a small number of similar causes. Python 3.14 became the default Python version in unstable towards the end of the month, starting a transition. These usually involve quite a bit of work, and there s much more to do, but I fixed a few things: Other build/test failures: Other bugs: Rust packaging New upstream versions: Code reviews Other bits and pieces

Matthew Garrett: Securing agentic identity

As is the case for many people working in the security industry, the last few months of my life have been focused on dealing with people wanting to use LLMs everywhere. From an enterprise security perspective that s not an inherent problem - what s more of a problem is that people want those agents to have access to resources like their calendar and email and so on, and now we have somewhat non-deterministic agents that seem very enthusiastic to achieve what you asked whether that s a good idea or not, and we re combining this with credentials that give them access to sensitive data, and leaving those credentials on disk where they can be committed into git repos or exfiltrated to some other service to make use of them on the agent s behalf or well just any other number of things, at which point your CEO s email is suddenly readable by everyone and you re having a bad day. As I mentioned in my last post, pretty much every strong mechanism for keeping credentials in place is just not supported in the wider world. We can imagine a universe where agents use hardware (or at least hypervisor) backed certificates to obtain credentials and any that end up leaking are worthless as a result. But, sadly, that s not an option for most people using existing identity providers. The state of the art is that you use the device code flow and a human authenticates and the token ends up back inside the agent environment and then it proceeds to do whatever it wants with it and you just hope that you wake up the next morning without an awful infoleak occurring. (An aside: I do not like the device code flow as used in enterprise environments, and I never will. The identity provider doesn t have a real opportuity to inspect the security posture of the system asking for the token, and as a result some identity providers will restrict tokens that are issued in this way. The common alternative of doing stuff using a more standard flow and having a redirect URI pointing at localhost works fine for local systems and is a pain for remote ones, even if you can commit crimes with SSH forwarding. I m going to suggest something that I think is better, and you are free to disagree) I m not in a position to get every identity provider and service provider to change their security posture, so I m somewhat stuck in terms of the tokens they re willing to issue me - largely either JWTs or opaque access tokens, with no support for any mechanism of binding that token to an instance. The token that s going to have to be provided to the remote service is something I have little influence over. But that doesn t mean I can t influence the token that lands inside the agent s environment. I can issue a placeholder token to the agent, and force it to communicate via a proxy that swaps out the placeholder for the real thing. The worst the agent can do is exfiltrate the placeholder token, and as long as malicious actors don t have access to that proxy, it doesn t matter - nobody else can do anything with the placeholder. This isn t a terribly novel insight, and it seems like almost everybody has reinvented this on their own. But a lot of these implementations involve you somehow obtaining the real token in advance and then pasting that into something that generates a placeholder that you provide to your agent environment somehow, and it s all a bit clunky and awkward, and it also means that you need to deal with something that keeps track of the mapping between placeholders and real tokens and oh no we ve just invented a secret store, and if you want this to work at scale and reliably you re just invented a high availability distributed secret store, and a lot of people who ve read that are now shaking their heads and reaching for gin. Can we simplify this, and improve security at the same time? I think we can! Remember when I said as long as malicious actors don t have access to that proxy, it doesn t matter ? What if they do? What if they compromise one machine inside your environment and are then able to email a bunch of employees and convince their agents to send more tokens back to them and then delete the email before a human reads it? Now you have someone inside the wall with access to those tokens, and presumably with access to the proxy, and now they can be anyone whose agent was gullible enough to think sending them a token was a good idea. This isn t good! So, I thought for a while, and I came up with a new idea. We can have a broker service that obtains credentials for us. We can run that centrally, away from the agents. A client in an agentic environment can request a token, and that can result in a URL being generated and the user being directed to open a URL in a browser and authenticate. When the user authenticates, the authentication flow redirects the confirmation back via the broker, and the broker obtains the real auth token. The obvious thing to do now would be to return the auth token to the client in the agentic environment, but we don t do that. Instead, we mint a new JWT, and add a new claim - one that contains an encrypted copy of the token. In the process we can copy over all the original claims, because those aren t secret - and now even if the client inspects the token to figure out what access it has, it ll get a correct answer. We sign the new token with our own signing key, and pass that back to the client. The client now has a legitimate JWT that is utterly useless, because the signature isn t trusted by anyone other than us. How does it use it? It makes an API request via a proxy, including the new token in the Authorization: header. The proxy verifies the signature on the token, and then decrypts the original token and swaps out the fake token for the real one. The remote API sees what it expects, and everyone is happy. There s never a real token in the agentic environment, but also we don t need to store anyting anywhere. The only state is the encryption keys, and those can be injected into the environment at startup. You need to scale? Just start more of these processes. You need to support multiple availability zones? Just start more of these processes in different places. No persistent data is ever held in the broker or the proxy. You don t need to care about distributed databases or secret stores. This felt wonderfully elegant and I felt smug about coming up with a better idea, and then I went to a bar earlier this week and sat down to read RFC 8705 and the guy next to me saw that over my shoulder and asked what I was reading and I explained why I was interested and we talked about agentic identity and then he mentioned that fly.io had something that sounded very similar and I read that and gosh yes it is very similar, so damn you fly.io for stealing my ideas 3 years before I even had them. Anyway. Now I need to do better. Remember that there s still a risk around anyone who has access to the proxy having access to the encrypted keys? We can remove that risk as well. It s not uncommon for agentic environments to have an identity issued via something like SPIFFE, at which point they have a client certificate. You can probably guess where I m going with this. If we require that an agent present a client cert to the broker when requesting a token, we can embed a representation of that client cert into the token we mint. The proxy can then require mTLS for the client connection, and can verify that the presented certificate matches the one represented in the token. If it does then whoever s using the token has access to the private key associated with the environment it was issued to. If we then ensure that the private keys backing these certificates are either hardware or hypervisor backed, and as such tied to a specific instance, we now have a high degree of confidence that the token can only be used in its intended environment. Even if our identity provider doesn t support RFC 8705, we can. This is fairly straightforward where you re using a platform where your identity provider is also the environment that s consuming your tokens, and more annoying for third parties. The broker potentially needs some amount of third party vendor knowledge to make that work for everyone. This is even more the case where login isn t via your identity provider (thanks, github), but none of this is insurmountable - just annoying. And where vendors issue opaque tokens rather than JWTs, this still isn t a problem; we can just mint a new JWT that includes the opaque token as an encrypted claim, and include the same certificate binding. The opaque token ends up being the thing that s presented to the third party, but only after we ve verified the mTLS binding. In an ideal world none of this would be necessary - someone would spin up a new agentic environment, a user would prove their identity, and a certificate embodying that identity would be issued to the environment with a private key that can t be exfiltrated. That certificate would be sufficient to obtain new certificates associated with the same private key, and we could still bind that into mTLS identity. This would be much simpler, but browsers don t support it, so it s not likely to happen any time soon. Anyway. Even if we can t have the best thing, we can do better than we are at the moment, and also it would be lovely if we could standardise on this rather than have everyone build their own thing. The end.

2 July 2026

Joey Hess: no LLM code in dependencies

I've spent about 100 hours of work over the past month to make sure git-annex can build without dependencies that contain LLM generated code. At least so far. https://git-annex.branchable.com/no_llm_code/ Needing to review a program's whole dependency tree on an ongoing basis is apparently what programming has come to? I've found some real stinkers. Large LLM generated changes being reverted in the next release without any explanation. An incoherent 1489 line commit message with 10,000 lines of changes to a 26,000 LOC code base. A LLM prompt to copy code from another project that seems to have only avoided being copyright infringement due to luck. I now have additional information about the quality of dependencies which will surely influence future decisions. As far as I can see, that's the only positive benefit of this work. I realize that I am probably trying to hold back the tide at this point. That appears to be why Software Freedom Conservancy punted, and I doubt that the FSF will do any better. As these dominos fall, I am reconsidering my participation in these communities. But I continue my work and support my users. It may seem easy to prompt a LLM with
Add fourmolu config and restyled neat format a module
And commit the result and call yourself a 10xer. But please consider the broader impact of your actions. (In the above case, that project lost my further collaboration on it.)

Matthew Garrett: Preventing token theft

When you log into a service you re given an authentication token. Each further request to the site includes that token, allowing the server to figure out who you are and ensuring that you have access to your data. Depending on site policy, this token may either be stored in memory (and so vanish if you restart your browser) or disk. The token is the proof of your identity. As far as the site is concerned, anyone with your token is you. These tokens may be traditional browser cookies, but they may also be stored in either site local storage or (if you re not using a browser) in some other storage location. In recent years we ve seen infostealer malware (like LummaC2) gain the ability to exfiltrate user tokens, allowing attackers to gain access to the user s data without needing to retain access to the user s machine. This attack is viable even if the site has strong MFA requirements, so passkeys don t help. Encrypting the tokens on disk doesn t prevent the malware from scraping them out of the browser s RAM or obtaining whatever key is used to encrypt them. This feels like a pretty hard problem to solve. But that hasn t stopped people from trying! Dirk Balfanz wrote an IETF draft describing a mechanism for using self-signed certificates for TLS authentication. This uses the mutual authentication feature of the TLS protocol that requires both sides prove their identity to each other. In regular TLS, the remote site presents a signed certificate that tells you who it is. When performing mutual authentication, you then present a certificate to the remote site telling it who you are. These client certificates are largely unused outside enterprise environments because they re a huge pain to deploy. It s not so much that this has sharp edges, it s that it s entirely made of sharp edges. Managing certificate deployment to your devices is hard. Browsers get confused if the certificates change under them. You have one certificate and it lives forever, so sites you present it to can track your identity. Users are prompted to choose a certificate to authenticate with, and if they pick the wrong one everything breaks and is hard to recover. I ve deployed this and I did not have a good time. But Balfanz s idea was simple. Rather than require certificates to be deployed, browsers would simply generate a certificate on the fly. The goal wasn t to prove the device or user s identity in any global way - but it would associate a TLS session with a specific certificate. You could then, for example, include a hash of the certificate in the cookie, and if someone tried to use that cookie without presenting that certificate then the cookie could be rejected. If the browser used a hardware-backed private key for the certificate then it would be impossible for an attacker to steal it. Sure, you could still steal cookies, but you wouldn t be able to use them. This was written almost 15 years ago, and seems simple, elegant, and functional. It didn t happen. Part of the reason for that is that, well, it wasn t quite so simple. One problem was privacy related. Cookies are only sent after the TLS session is established, so anyone monitoring the network doesn t know anything about the user identity. A naive implementation of this approach would have meant the client certificate being sent before session establishment, and now user identity can be tracked (no longer an issue if this was implemented on top of TLS 1.3, but this was a log time ago). This was avoided by reordering the client handshake, but that meant having to modify the TLS specification and implementations would have to be updated to support this. Another was that figuring out the granularity of the certificates was difficult. You d want to use different certificates for every site to avoid them effectively becoming tracking cookies, but you need to provide the certificate before cookies are set, and you don t know what origin the site is going to set in its cookies. If you generate a certificate for a.example.com and a different one for b.example.com, and a.example.com sets a cookie for *.example.com and includes the certificate you used for a.example.com, that cookie isn t going to work on b.example.com and things are broken. This meant supporting it wasn t as straightforward as it seemed - you d need to ensure that your cookie scope was compatible with the certificate scope. You could probably make this work well enough by aligning it with the Public Suffix List, but there was still some risk of expectations not being aligned. And, perhaps most importantly, TLS session resumption (replaced by pre-shared keys in TLS 1.3) somewhat defeats the purpose of the exercise - clients store state that allows them to re-establish a TLS connection without performing certificate exchange (this reduces overhead if a connection gets interrupted or you switch to a new network or anything along those lines), and anyone in a position to steal cookies could steal that state as well. The followup attempt was channel IDs. This simplified the implementation somewhat - rather than certificates, a raw public key would be sent, along with proof of possession of the private key in the form of a signature over a portion of the TLS handshake. This was required even in the event of session resumption, which avoided having to worry about theft of session secrets. The timing of the exchange was after the encrypted session had been established, so user identity couldn t be leaked that way either. Cookies could then be bound to this identifier. Unfortunately it didn t really deal with the problem of scoping keys in a way that would match cookie requirements, and the spec suggests that the right way of handling this is to scope keys to TLDs, which would enable user tracking across sites (Chrome s implementation apparently restricted it to eTLD+1, which would match the third party cookie policy and avoid the tracking risk). Chrome added support for this, but it was removed in early 2018. The discussion of some of the pain points in that message is interesting, explicitly calling out problems with connection coalescing across domains and the incompatibility with zero-RTT TLS1.3. The overall consensus at the time seems to be that trying to solve this entirely at the TLS layer has too many rough edges, and a different approach should be taken. And so almost 7 years after the initial draft for origin bound certificates, we come to token binding. This ended up being a rather more complex endeavour, covering 3 different RFCs describing how it impacts TLS, how to incorporate it into HTTP, and how to manage all the various parties involved in the process. The short version is that it s pretty similar to channel ID, except that there s also a documented mechanism for allowing tokens to be bound to one party and consumed by another, avoiding any need for widely scoped keys. Token binding effectively solved all the issues in the original proposal, but at the cost of somewhat more complexity. The RFC was finalised in October 2018. Chrome removed its (incomplete, draft) support for token binding in November 2018. Edge carried support until late 2024. Despite getting all the way through the RFC process, it s functionally dead. The process up until this point had been largely initiated by Google, with Microsoft contributing significantly to the token binding standards. The work had been focused on identifying a generic solution to the problem rather than tying it to any specific authentication flow. The next step was in a different direction - rather than trying to fix this for the entire internet, how about we try to fix it for OAuth? RFC 8705 is titled OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens . This is basically the 2011 approach, but (a) with an explicit definition of how the certificate should be incorporated into issued auth cookies, and (b) with a proviso that well uh if you re going to use tokens issued by your IdP to authenticate to someone else then well you re going to need to use the same cert for both. This is probably fine for the company-owned-laptop case where you re actually fine with multiple sites being able to tie identities together (that s kind of the point here!), and also works for I am using an app and not a browser , but doesn t work for more generic scenarios. It also doesn t seem to take the session resumption case into account at all? Support for RFC8705 seems poor, as far as I can tell of the big players only Auth0 implements it. In theory it works fine with self-signed client certs but in reality that s going to be almost as difficult to support across multiple platforms as just issuing proper client certs in the first place, so deployment is going to be kind of a pain. But the good news is it doesn t rely on any TLS extensions or custom browser behaviour, so at the client side it works fine with any browser. Which brings us on to RFC 9449, Demonstrating Proof of Possession . This goes even further than RFC8705 in terms of reducing the burden of deployment - it works fine with existing browsers, and it doesn t even require any certs. The client generates a keypair and provides the pubkey when requesting the cookie. The cookie contains the pubkey. Every request to the service now provides the cookie with the pubkey and also provides a signature over the URI and HTTP method. If the signature matches the pubkey in the token then clearly the signature came from the machine the token was issued to, and everything is good. This does come with some downsides, though. The first is that it uses browser interfaces to generate the keys (typically crypto.subtle.generatekey()) and as far as I can tell there are no browsers that guarantee that that key is going to be generated in hardware even if it s marked non-exportable, so anyone able to steal the cookies can also steal the keys. The second is that the signature only covers the URI and HTTP method, and not the message content or any other headers, so anyone able to exfiltrate a valid signature can replay it against the same URI with different message content. The recommended way to handle this is to reject any signatures that weren t generated within the last few seconds, which is a wonderful additional way to allow clock skew to give you a Bad Day. And the third is that every single request has to be separately signed, which is not intrinsically a problem because computers are fast and have multiple cores, but if you re trying to solve the first problem by sticking the key in a TPM then you re dealing with something that s slow and single threaded and that s maybe acceptable if you re using client certificates (because there s going to be one signature per session and you can use the same session for multiple requests) but probably not if you re dealing with a user opening a browser that restores previous tabs and each of those is a webapp that fires off 100 requests in parallel. In case it wasn t clear, I don t like DPoP. It doesn t feel like it actually solves the underlying problem that we see in the real world (malware running in a context where if it can grab the tokens it can grab the keys), it adds a massive amount of overhead, and it has baked in replay vulnerabilities. I don t know why it exists and I m incredibly suspicious of vendors telling me that it fixes my problems, because if they re telling me that then I m going to end up assuming that they either don t understand my problems or they don t understand their technology, and neither of those is good. Still. Then we get to the thing that prompted me to write this - Chrome s announcement that they had launched device-bound session credentials. This is interesting because it s a Chrome feature that s explicitly intended to counter on-device malware, which was one of the things that was out of scope in 2018 when token binding was being removed. Since this is entire web level it doesn t have to be an RFC, and so is instead defined by W3C. I m going to handwave all the complexity and say that it s basically a way to register a public key when a cookie is issued, and then prove possession of the private key when it s time to renew the cookie. By making the cookies shortlived and having support for rotating them in the background, user impact is basically zero and while it s still possible for an attacker to exfiltrate and use a cookie they ll only be able to do so for a short window before it needs to be refreshed - something the attacker can t do, since they don t have the private key. This avoids the DPoP overhead because you only need to do signing once per cookie per cookie lifetime, and not on every single request. I don t like this due to the window where exfiltrated tokens can be used, but it feels like a strict improvement over the status quo. An extension called device-bound session credentials for enterprise allows pre-enrollment of device keys, so even though the actual runtime DBCE flow doesn t involve certificates, certificates can be used for device registration in enterprise environments and you can make sure that auth cookies only go to trusted devices. Unfortunately this is Chrome-only, and so we re going to need to wait for it to be backported to all the random app frameworks for it to have widespread support on mobile or for almost everyone s desktop app that s actually three websites in an Electron wrapper. Mozilla s current position is that they re not in favour of it, so I guess we ll see where Safari lands in terms of broad uptake. The last thing on my list is another client cert/OAuth binding, this one still in draft state at the time of writing. This one is aimed primarily at the use of agent-driven tooling, where you have something running in the background using a whole bunch of tools that are each acting on your behalf. Authenticating to all of them separately isn t a fun time, but giving broadly scoped access tokens to a non-deterministic agent and trusting that it ll never post them somewhere public also isn t a fun time. The key distinction between it and RFC8705 is that it s aimed at connections rather than sessions, which avoids the worries about session resumption. This is done with TLS Exporters, which in TLS 1.3 should be unique to the connection even over session resumption (TLS 1.2 may reuse some of the same key material for exporters over session resumption, so it s recommended to enforce 1.3 for this). By providing a new signature alongside the cookie on every new connection, the client proves that it still has access to the private key. This is a very new spec and I haven t had much time to work through it yet, but my naive understanding is that unlike RFC8705 this would require some additional client support to be able to regenerate the client signature on every TLS reconnection. This doesn t avoid all the problems that RFC8705 has, including how to scope certificates. For the agentic use case that probably doesn t matter - all these tools are acting on behalf of the same user, it s fine if all the sites involved know they re the same user. But it doesn t solve the general purpose user use case, and right now DBSC seems like the best we have there. But. Part of me still wonders whether Dirk Balfanz s approach was the right one. Yes, there s risk associated with TLS session resumption, but in the worst case you could just switch that off for high risk setups. The cookie scope argument is real, and also in cases where it could violate privacy the site owner could already choose to broaden their cookie scope and violate your privacy, and in cases where it breaks things you could just not make use of it. The other problems are largely fixed by TLS 1.3, and then we re just left with Browsers handle client certificates badly to which my answer is Yes, and we should fix that anyway . Despite having a pretty good answer to this solution over a decade ago, the closest we have to actual deployment is something that offers strictly worse security guarantees. And tokens keep getting stolen, and compromises keep occurring, and for the most part people shrug and get on with things.

Next.