On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> Obtaining code over an insecure transport is a terrible idea for
> blatently obvious reasons. Even for non-executable data, insecure
> transports are considered deprecated.
>
> This patch was created by doing a tree-wide search
On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 05:16:21AM +0100, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > Obtaining code over an insecure transport is a terrible idea for
> > blatently obvious reasons. Even for non-executable data, insecure
> > transport
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> Obtaining code over an insecure transport is a terrible idea for
> blatently obvious reasons. Even for non-executable data, insecure
> transports are considered deprecated.
>
> This patch was created by doing a tree-wide search
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 07:27:05PM -0800, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > Obtaining code over an insecure transport is a terrible idea for
> > blatently obvious reasons. Even for non-executable data, insecure
> > transports are cons
On Mon, Feb 06, 2023 at 10:10:33PM -0500, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> Obtaining code over an insecure transport is a terrible idea for
> blatently obvious reasons. Even for non-executable data, insecure
> transports are considered deprecated.
I completely agree with the premise, but I would sugge
Obtaining code over an insecure transport is a terrible idea for
blatently obvious reasons. Even for non-executable data, insecure
transports are considered deprecated.
This patch was created by doing a tree-wide search and replace with sed,
then reverting changes that were pointless or wrong.
S
