Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Basesystem Cache files on Mirror

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ondra Tomecka <otom7630 AT lucy.troja.mff.cuni.cz>
  • To: David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org>
  • Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Basesystem Cache files on Mirror
  • Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 01:06:45 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, David Kowis wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ondra Tomecka wrote:
> >
> > And don't forget that this has potential for a huge security hole, when
> > some malicious user contributes tarball with modified binary. How are we
> > supposed to detect such a thing, or prevent it at all? Not that I think
> > such tarball cache is bad idea, it would save me quite a lot of time
> > sometimes, but still this security concern is a big one.
>
> Perhaps, since there's stuff in sorcery for GPG verification, we could
> use gpg to verify the tarballs. If the QA Team is going to generate them
> then they could sign the tarballs and put the signature and the cache on
> the download site.
>
>

But if QA team is to create those tarballs, what is the reason for other
users to create them? I know, I'm playing devil's advocate here, but there
are important security issues here and I just don't want my computers to
fall easy prey to malicious hacker :) I may sound a bit paranoid, but I'm
managing one server under constant attack (about 20 attempts a day), so
the paranoia has its own sense :) Not counting other computers where I use
SourceMage (3 as of now, fourth to be added soon)

If anyone shows me that my concerns are moot, it would be great then. Not
that I like to be proved wrong, but when good idea turns out to be secure
idea, the better for everyone.

Andy






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page