I agree, but there is signature system, which with addition of
appropriate SW (e.g. built in in ports fetch/update/ ...) provides the
required security.
LPA
Dne 11/18/12 12:42 AM, piše David Thiel:
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:05:33AM -0500, Gary Palmer wrote:
Can someone explain why the cvsup/csup infrastructure is considered insecure
if the person had access to the *package* building cluster? Is it because
the leaked key also had access to something in the chain that goes to cvsup,
or is it because the project is not auditing the cvsup system and so the
default assumption is that it cannot be trusted to not be compromised?
Regardless of the circumstances of the incident, use of cvsup/csup has
always been horrendously dangerous. People should regard any code
retrieved over this channel to have been potentially compromised by a
network attacker.
Portsnap. Srsly.
-David
_______________________________________________
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
