| 1 |
On Mon, 2011-03-07 at 20:47 +0100, 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 |
Maybe it's not to protect the user, but to protect the Gentoo |
| 23 |
infrastructure.. And really, SSL has been supported by every browser for |
| 24 |
the last 15 years. And it is not in any way slow or slower than non-SSL. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Olivier Crête |
| 29 |
tester@g.o |
| 30 |
Gentoo Developer |
Archives