Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: "Brian G. Peterson" <brian@×××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] Let's blow the whistle
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:41:19
Message-Id: 200411080840.52020.brian@braverock.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-security] Let's blow the whistle by Peter Simons
1 On Monday 08 November 2004 07:47 am, Peter Simons wrote:
2 > Since most of you seem to be believe that the bug is really
3 > not that serious, I am certain this will worry you not in
4 > the least.
5
6 I assume that you intend to 'blow the whistle' because you are incapable or
7 unwilling to submit a patch for the issue yourself?
8
9 I agree that there is a lot of room for improvement in the portage security
10 system. Signed ebuilds are a good start, but without ways to verify those
11 signatures from a second source (presumably a different portage mirror),
12 signed ebuilds don't buy much security.
13
14 I wouldn't waste your time hypothesizing about a man in the middle attack.
15 While MOTM attacks are theoretically possible on many many protocols, they
16 are *not* a serious threat, because of the scale on which they must be
17 undertaken, and the general care taken to keep core routers secure. Small
18 scale MOTM attacks (like from a disgruntled employee) are certainly more
19 feasible, and more common, but still require a fair degree of sophisication.
20 Such an attacker for a small-scale MOTM attack probably has the
21 sophistication to undertake a different, easier exploit.
22
23 Others have already pointed out that Gentoo is a community based distribution.
24 We help each other. Picking fights with volunteers has probably taken about
25 as much time as it would have taken you to look at the python code and at
26 least propose a code *design* for a patch, even if you can't code it
27 yourself.
28
29 Regards,
30
31 - Brian
32
33 --
34 gentoo-security@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-security] Re: Let's blow the whistle Peter Simons <simons@××××.to>