> On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 11:50:58PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > Another problem is that bitkeeper has not been through a security audit. > > Maybe, but i like the fact that BitKeeper uses ssh by default for > transmitting data. That isnt the problem. Its what is in the source data you have to worry about. CVS also uses SSH happily. That doesn't stop attacks on either by feeding the server/input side bogus metadata - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Management System Daniel Quinlan
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Management Sy... David S. Miller
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Managemen... Daniel Quinlan
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Manag... David S. Miller
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch ... Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... Rogier Wolff
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... David Lang
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... Alan Cox
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... Nathan Paul Simons
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... Alan Cox
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... Nathan Paul Simons
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... almesber
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... Richard Gooch
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... Russell King
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... Richard Gooch
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... David S. Miller
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Pa... Alan Cox
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Managemen... Erik Andersen
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Management System Theodore Y. Ts'o
- Re: Proposal: Linux Kernel Patch Management System Mitchell Blank Jr