| 1 |
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Joshua Brindle wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> >On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Joshua Brindle wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >> there is no easy way since the only way cvs knows to allow/disallow commits is |
| 6 |
> >> by permissions, we use permissions but they aren't fine grained, ie: everyone |
| 7 |
> >> who has access to commit any package can commit to all of them. This is a lot |
| 8 |
> >> better anyway since we have to be able to add new packages, do quick bumps |
| 9 |
> >> on packages we don't necessarilly maintain, etc. Obviously if a dev is abusing |
| 10 |
> >> we'll have records of what was commited and where and be able to take care |
| 11 |
> >> of that. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> >I maintained a CVS repository at my old workplace. |
| 14 |
> >By taking advantage of the CVS passwd file, I was able to both avoid authenticating with local |
| 15 |
> >users, *and* allow arbitrarily fine-grained access to the repository. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> >If you think it would be useful, I could sketch out our permission scheme. It wasn't terribly |
| 18 |
> >complicated, although it did result in creation of a lot of groups and users... |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> AFAIK this necessitates use of cvs pserver. We don't use pserver, it's less secure than |
| 22 |
> cvs over ssh which is what we use. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> and when i said it can't be done easily i meant logistically, devs move around a lot, |
| 25 |
> take care of what needs taken care of, etc. It would be a full time job keeping |
| 26 |
> permissions up to date, and it also wouldn't be a productive use of time. Moreover |
| 27 |
> we do have a need to authenticate locally since cvs isn't the only resource developers |
| 28 |
> use on the machine. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
http://www.sabren.net/code/cvssh/ |
| 31 |
Mentions the various alternatives for securing pserver. It can be done, with a little effort. |
| 32 |
Obviously, maintaining the permissions scheme *does* take a little work. However, most developer's permissions didn't change much over time, and there was a lot of overlap generic areas of permission. |
| 33 |
3 or 4 developers would only have access to a couple of sub projects for example. Another group had access to almost everything. |
| 34 |
I estimate maintaining permissions took up perhaps an hour or so a month. |
| 35 |
But was just mentioning it, since I don't have much else to contribute at the moment... |
| 36 |
*derek goes back to lurking* |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-hardened@g.o mailing list |
Archives