1 |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
5 |
|
6 |
|
7 |
|
8 |
Hello all,
|
9 |
I do think that it may have been something that should have been |
10 |
looked into a bit more when first noticed. However, let me ask a few |
11 |
questions,
|
12 |
1. In order to inject this you need to get access to a rsync mirror/run |
13 |
one ?
|
14 |
2. How many times do you sync via someone's rsync mirror running out of |
15 |
their house?
|
16 |
3. How many times has an rsync mirror been comprimised?
|
17 |
|
18 |
If it were installed on and of my 500 systems A. my firewall has me |
19 |
covered, B. I would more than likely notice.
|
20 |
Just the few questions I had pop into my head about this subject.
|
21 |
Now mind you I am not trying to be an ass about this but I do see both |
22 |
sides to this issue.
|
23 |
But as people have said already. signed ebuilds.
|
24 |
|
25 |
|
26 |
-Jason
|
27 |
|
28 |
Chris Frey wrote: |
29 |
|
30 |
On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:16:11PM +0100, Alexander Holler wrote: |
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
Hi, |
34 |
|
35 |
after 1.5 years (2 years after the bug could could found in bugzilla) it |
36 |
seems that one of the highest security risks is closed. At least I've |
37 |
|
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
1.5 years is a long time to figure out how to sign an ebuild. It puzzles |
41 |
me that there is such resistence to these security steps, and not just |
42 |
in Gentoo. |
43 |
|
44 |
Maybe in 1.5 years checking signed ebuilds will be the rule instead of |
45 |
the exception. :-) |
46 |
|
47 |
Thanks for the reminder Alexander. |
48 |
|
49 |
- Chris |
50 |
|
51 |
|
52 |
-- |
53 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
54 |
|
55 |
|
56 |
|
57 |
|
58 |
|
59 |
|
60 |
|
61 |
-- |
62 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
63 |
|
64 |
|