| 1 |
On Sun, Sep 07, 2003 at 10:34:06PM +0000, Jan Krueger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 07 September 2003 19:56, Jon Portnoy wrote: |
| 3 |
> > The vulnerability at that point is compromised keys, which is why we |
| 4 |
> > would have an uberkey so we can revoke developer keys as soon as |
| 5 |
> > possible. It's not foolproof, but it's a whole lot better. |
| 6 |
> I agree. |
| 7 |
> But thats no excuse to not fix the security/consitency faults in portage that |
| 8 |
> showed up in this discussion. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
What, that any situation involving installing software is going to have |
| 12 |
security holes? That's the nature of software installation. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> You never know ... |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> It may already be to late for thousends of users until someone of gentoo-core |
| 17 |
> uses the ueberkey, especially in holiday seasons. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Or has core, especially in key questions, an availablity of 24/7? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
We have enough managers who do this nearly full-time (including myself |
| 22 |
most of the time), and we share phone numbers (and cell phone numbers), |
| 23 |
so it's fairly unlikely. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> > There is no such thing as perfect security short of shutting down your |
| 27 |
> > computer. |
| 28 |
> Yes, you never know... |
| 29 |
> Thats why i would prefer a secure transport layer for emerge, you know? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Jan |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
A secure transport layer is unnecessary if we're using GPG signing, |
| 34 |
which has always been the intent - but seems to have stalled. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Jon Portnoy |
| 38 |
avenj/irc.freenode.net |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives