Merge pull request #7 from SystemsApproach/workflows

create workflows for GitHub Actions; fix whitespace errors

Author: drbruced12

.github/workflows/publish-docs.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+name: Publish Docs Workflow
+run-name: ${{ github.actor }} is publishing document artifacts 🚀
+on:
+  push:
+    branches:
+      - master
+
+
+          # Sets permissions of the GITHUB_TOKEN to allow deployment to GitHub Pages
+permissions:
+  contents: read
+  pages: write
+  id-token: write
+
+# Allow only one concurrent deployment, skipping runs queued between the run in-progress and latest queued.
+# However, do NOT cancel in-progress runs as we want to allow these production deployments to complete.
+concurrency:
+  group: "pages"
+  cancel-in-progress: false
+
+jobs:
+  # Single deploy job since we're just deploying
+  deploy:
+    environment:
+      name: github-pages
+      url: ${{ steps.deployment.outputs.page_url }}
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - name: Checkout
+        uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - name: Setup Pages
+        uses: actions/configure-pages@v4
+      - name: Build html
+        run: make html
+      - name: Upload artifact
+        uses: actions/upload-pages-artifact@v3
+        with:
+          # Upload build repository
+          path: './_build/html'
+      - name: Deploy to GitHub Pages
+        id: deployment
+        uses: actions/deploy-pages@v4
+
+
+
+      - run: echo "🍏 This job's status is ${{ job.status }}."

.github/workflows/validate-docs.yml

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+name: Validate Docs Workflow
+run-name: ${{ github.actor }} is validating document source
+on: [pull_request, workflow_dispatch]
+jobs:
+  Validate_Docs:
+    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
+    steps:
+      - run: echo "🎉 The job was automatically triggered by a ${{ github.event_name }} event."
+      - run: echo "🐧 This job is now running on a ${{ runner.os }} server hosted by GitHub!"
+      - run: echo "🔎 The name of your branch is ${{ github.ref }} and your repository is ${{ github.repository }}."
+      - name: Check out repo
+        uses: actions/checkout@v4
+      - name: Validate source
+        run: make test
+      - name: Build html
+        run: make html
+      - name: List built files
+        run: |
+          ls ${{ github.workspace }}/_build/html
+
+      - run: echo "🍏 This job's status is ${{ job.status }}."
+

Makefile

@@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ $(VIRTUALENV):
   source ./$@/bin/activate ;\
   pip install -r requirements.txt
 
-# lint and link verification. linkcheck is built into sphinx
-test: lint spelling linkcheck
+# lint and spelling verification. linkcheck is skipped to avoid warnings during development
+test: lint spelling
 
 # lint all .rst files
 lint: $(VIRTUALENV)

crypto.rst

@@ -80,12 +80,12 @@ there are plenty of people who will try to break ciphers and who will
 let it be widely known when they have succeeded.
 
 Parameterizing a cipher with keys provides us with what is in effect a
-very large family of ciphers; by switching keys, we are 
+very large family of ciphers; by switching keys, we are
 switching to another cipher in the family. It is common to limit the amount
 of data that a *cryptanalyst* (code-breaker) can access before the key
 changes. This provides the attacker with less ability to break the cipher
 (for reasons discussed below) and limits the damage done if the code is
-broken. 
+broken.
 
 The basic requirement for an encryption algorithm is that it turns
 plaintext into ciphertext in such a way that only the intended
@@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ session. Common headers appear at the start of HTTP messages. This may
 enable a *known plaintext* attack, which has a much higher chance of
 success than a *ciphertext only* attack. Even better is a *chosen
 plaintext* attack, which may be enabled by feeding some information to
-the sender that you know the sender is likely to transmit. 
+the sender that you know the sender is likely to transmit.
 
 The best cryptographic algorithms, therefore, can prevent the attacker
 from deducing the key even when the individual knows both the
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ It turns out that it is not trivial to create cryptographic ciphers
 that can be broken only by brute force. For example, the original DES
 (data encryption standard) algorithm had a key of only 56 bits; when
 it became clear that 56 bits was too small, triple DES was introduced, using three
-rounds of DES each with its own key. It might seem that this 
+rounds of DES each with its own key. It might seem that this
 increased the key size to 168 bits (:math:`3 \times 56`) but because
 of the 3-round structure of triple DES, the attacker only has to
 search a key space of 112 bits. This depends on something called a
@@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ to be an issue is available at the "Sweet32" website.
 .. admonition:: Further Reading
 
    Sweet32. `Birthday attacks on 64-bit block ciphers in TLS and OpenVPN
-   <https://sweet32.info>`__. 
+   <https://sweet32.info>`__.
 
 
 
@@ -237,11 +237,11 @@ two participants use different keys.)
        secure communication since that is a common networking term to
        identify the two endpoints of a communication channel. In the
        security world, the parties are often called *principals*.
-       
+
 The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has
 issued standards for a series of secret-key ciphers. *Data Encryption
 Standard* (DES) was the first, and it survived for several decades
-before being deprecated. 
+before being deprecated.
 
 DES keys have 56 independent bits (although they have 64 bits
 in total; the last bit of every byte is a parity bit). As noted above,
@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ Bruce Schneier puts it this way:
   hard. What is hard is creating an algorithm that no one else can
   break, even after years of analysis. And the only way to prove that
   is to subject the algorithm to years of analysis by the best
-  cryptographers around. 
+  cryptographers around.
 
 3.3 Public-Key Ciphers
 ------------------------
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ confidentiality to secret-key ciphers. The symmetric key sent over
 this confidential channel is called a *session key*. The reasons for this two-step
 approach include the higher efficiency of secret-key ciphers, and the need
 for reasonably frequent changing of encryption keys as described
-above. 
+above.
 
 .. _fig-pksign:
 .. figure:: figures/f08-04-9780123850591.png
@@ -410,8 +410,8 @@ reserved for use in authentication and session key establishment.
    that are much larger than any that have been built to date. As
    progress is made towards ever larger quantum computers, measured by
    the number of quantum bits (qubits), there is a real
-   risk that many current cryptographic algorithms will at some point 
-   become breakable. 
+   risk that many current cryptographic algorithms will at some point
+   become breakable.
 
    There is plenty of debate about whether quantum computing will ever
    progress to the point that the risks to conventional cryptography
@@ -429,7 +429,7 @@ reserved for use in authentication and session key establishment.
    today could be stored for a decade or two and then decrypted by a
    future quantum computer, so even data produced today could be at
    risk.
-   
+
    The response to this uncertain threat has been to develop suites of
    cryptographic algorithms for which no quantum solution is
    known. This is the field of "Post-Quantum Cryptography". Note the
@@ -446,9 +446,6 @@ reserved for use in authentication and session key establishment.
    change, the requirement for *crypto-agility*—the ability to swap
    out one set of algorithms for another—is now well established.
 
-   
-
-
 3.4 Message Authentication
 ---------------------------------
 
@@ -523,7 +520,7 @@ Suppose that an adversary intercepts the message on its way to the
 receiver and tries to modify the transmitted message in
 some way. The message digest for this corrupted message would (with
 very high likelihood) differ from that of the original message. And
-the adversary lacks the necessary key to 
+the adversary lacks the necessary key to
 encrypt the digest of the corrupted message. An adversary could,
 however, obtain the plaintext original message and its encrypted digest
 by eavesdropping. The adversary could then (since the hash function is
@@ -564,7 +561,7 @@ cipher is used, the digest is encrypted using the sender’s private
 key, and the
 receiver—or anyone else—could decrypt the digest using the sender’s
 public key. If a secret-key cipher is used, the sender and receiver
-have to agree on the secret key ahead of time using some other means. 
+have to agree on the secret key ahead of time using some other means.
 
 A digest encrypted with a public-key algorithm using the private
 key of the sender
@@ -580,7 +577,7 @@ message herself. Any public-key cipher can be used for digital
 signatures. NIST has produced a series of *Digital Signature
 Standards* (DSS). The most recent standard at the time of writing
 allows for the use of three public-key ciphers, one based on RSA,
-another based on elliptic curves, and 
+another based on elliptic curves, and
 and a third called the *Edwards-Curve Digital Signature Algorithm*.
 
 .. should check the above for updates
@@ -633,8 +630,7 @@ associated data—while the rest
 of the message is encrypted, and the whole thing, headers included, is
 authenticated. We won't go into details here, but there is now a set of
 integrated algorithms that produce both ciphertext and authentication
-codes using a combination of ciphers and hash functions. 
-
+codes using a combination of ciphers and hash functions.
 
 Now that we have seen some of the building blocks for encryption and
 authentication, we have the foundations for building some complete security

intro.rst

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ they run code on the same system. At the same time, when one user
 *wants* to share data with another, the operating system needs to
 support that in a controlled way. Similarly, multi-user systems ensure
 that malicious or poorly written code from one user cannot interfere
-with the operation of another user's programs. 
+with the operation of another user's programs.
 
 Computer networks are, like multi-user computers, shared
 resources, and similar requirements apply. One network user should not
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ that meet certain security objectives, such as protection against
 eavesdropping and modification of data in transit. The systems
 approach requires us to look at the entire system: the network
 components and the end systems connected by the network, both hardware
-and software. 
+and software.
 
 1.1 A Short History of Internet Security
 ----------------------------------------
@@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ similarly lacked any security provisions in its original design. Not
 only do we need to be concerned about modification of routing messages
 in transit, but it has historically been all too easy to simply send
 incorrect routing updates in BGP. For example, a router might advertise a good route to
-some prefix from an autonomous system that has no such route. 
+some prefix from an autonomous system that has no such route.
 Securing BGP has likewise proven to be a multi-decade, incremental task.
 
 This is by no means a complete history of Internet security but it
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ pioneers are interviewed.
 
   C. Timberg. `A Net of Insecurity
   <https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/2015/05/30/net-of-insecurity-part-1/>`__.
-  The Washington Post, May 30, 2015. 
+  The Washington Post, May 30, 2015.
 
 1.2 Trust and Threats
 ----------------------
@@ -244,14 +244,14 @@ security strategy:
 * Step 2: What are the risks to these assets?
 * Step 3: How well does the security solution mitigate those risks?
 * Step 4: What other risks does the security solution cause?
-* Step 5: What costs and trade-offs does the security solution impose?  
+* Step 5: What costs and trade-offs does the security solution impose?
 
 Schneier's book is targeted at a general audience, addressing
 security in a broad context (e.g., airports), not just computing systems and
 networks. Nevertheless it provides some useful guidelines that are
 applicable to system security.
 
-  
+
 .. admonition:: Further Reading
 
   B. Schneier. Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an
@@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ In addition to these issues, the Internet has notably been used as a
 means for deploying malicious code, generally called *malware*, that
 exploits vulnerabilities in end systems. *Worms*, of which the Morris
 worm is a famous example, are pieces of
-self-replicating code that spread over networks. 
+self-replicating code that spread over networks.
 *Viruses* differ slightly from worms, in that they are spread by the transmission of infected files.
 Once infected, machines can then be arranged into *botnets*, in which
 a set of compromised machines are harnessed together