| 1 |
On 03/07/2011 08:47 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2011 15:48:19 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> If *anybody* can't use SSL for any reason please yell so that we |
| 7 |
>>>>> can decide if we leave it as it is (plain + encrypted) or not. |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> Is there any *real* reason to force SSL? It is *hell* slow. |
| 10 |
>>> |
| 11 |
>>> it should of course be force for logging in |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> If it is enforced for login, it should be enforced for logged |
| 14 |
>> in sessions, cf. Cookie stealing (for a POC: Firesheep). And no, |
| 15 |
>> restricting the login cookie to an IP is *not* "safe enough". |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Why does everyone assume it needs to be enforced? If user is interested |
| 18 |
> in protecting his/her data, he/she can simply use https://. If he/she |
| 19 |
> is not, there is no real reason to enforce slower (and not always |
| 20 |
> supported) SSL. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> It's like forcing everyone to have doors with semi-automatic locks. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
*I* think it's ok if we're going to protect *our* data. Some user may |
| 26 |
even benefit from it. |
| 27 |
I don't see any disadvantages for our users. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Regards, |
| 31 |
Christian Ruppert |
| 32 |
Role: Gentoo Linux developer, Bugzilla administrator and Infrastructure |
| 33 |
member |
| 34 |
Fingerprint: EEB1 C341 7C84 B274 6C59 F243 5EAB 0C62 B427 ABC8 |
Archives