Why Software Signing (Still) Matters: Trust Boundaries in the Software Supply Chain

October 06, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› arXiv.org

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Kelechi G. Kalu, James C. Davis arXiv ID 2510.04964 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 1 Venue arXiv.org Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Software signing provides a formal mechanism for provenance by ensuring artifact integrity and verifying producer identity. It also imposes tooling and operational costs to implement in practice. In an era of centralized registries such as PyPI, npm, Maven Central, and Hugging Face, it is reasonable to ask whether hardening registry security controls obviates the need for end-to-end artifact signing. In this work, we posit that the core guarantees of signing, provenance, integrity, and accountability are not automatically carried across different software distribution boundaries. These boundaries include mirrors, corporate proxies, re-hosting, and air-gapped transfers, where registry security controls alone cannot provide sufficient assurance. We synthesize historical practice and present a trust model for modern distribution modes to identify when signing is necessary to extend trust beyond registry control. Treating signing as a baseline layer of defense strengthens software supply chain assurance even when registries are secure.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted