| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 12:26:44AM +0200, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 1/18/08, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 17 January 2008, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > anonvcs.gentoo.org: anoncvs, anonsvn, anongit |
| 5 |
> > > - Anonymous SVN is changing from http:// to svn:// [1] |
| 6 |
> > > overlays.gentoo.org [3]: |
| 7 |
> > > - Anonymous SVN is changing from http:// to svn:// |
| 8 |
> > i'd point out that http:// syncing is usable from behind firewalls while |
| 9 |
> > svn:// is not ... while this does not affect me personally, it's something to |
| 10 |
> > keep in mind. |
| 11 |
> > -mike |
| 12 |
> Just wanted to note this too... I am one of the affected ones... |
| 13 |
> I think that it is very important to have http, and even https for |
| 14 |
> formal resources. |
| 15 |
> git://, svn://, rsync:// or ssh+X:// are inaccessible for a large |
| 16 |
> group of users. |
| 17 |
My core concern with the SVN http://, was the crappy performance it |
| 18 |
provided compared to svn://. The main rsync tree has never been |
| 19 |
available for iterative syncing via http://, just had tarball snapshots |
| 20 |
and deltas instead. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Also using none secured protocols, exposes users to man-in-the-middle attacks. |
| 23 |
The existing http:// had this problem already, it's not a new one. |
| 24 |
git:// and svn:// do both have patches around adding support for adding |
| 25 |
TLS. This however just adds overhead, I really need to finish the |
| 26 |
tree-signing work I was doing, as that protects the content better (MITM |
| 27 |
is still possible on SSL without it, just a lot harder as an attacker |
| 28 |
has to deal with the SSL stream first). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 32 |
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy |
| 33 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 34 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives