| 1 |
maillog: 25/03/2004-17:50:41(+0000): Chris Bainbridge types |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 25 March 2004 17:08, Koon wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > We are not trying to discuss ways of having the most secure Linux |
| 5 |
> > distribution out there, review all sources, treat the rogue developer |
| 6 |
> > problem ; we are trying to have a secure distribution mecanism which |
| 7 |
> > does not depend on outside factors. For the moment we don't have that. |
| 8 |
> > Once this is done, it will always be time to discuss better mecanisms to |
| 9 |
> > ensure better security. You will probably find in the end that the |
| 10 |
> > increased-security/work-overhead tradeoff to solve the rogue dev case is |
| 11 |
> > not acceptable. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > So for for me the only objective is : |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > * protect against compromised rsync server |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Why? There are more gentoo developers than rsync servers. Their machines do |
| 18 |
> more than rsync servers. What reason is there to believe that a compromise of |
| 19 |
> an rsync server is more likely than compromise of a developer machine? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
rsync servers are visible, developer machines are not (as visible) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
/ Georgi Georgiev / Civilization, as we know it, will end / |
| 25 |
\ chutz@×××.net \ sometime this evening. See SYSNOTE tomorrow \ |
| 26 |
/ +81(90)6266-1163 / for more information. / |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives