Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:58:34 +0400
Subject: Re: HTTPS

On 15-Aug-2013 13:34:57 +0000, Jeremy Stanley wrote:

 >> Unlike SSH, the HTTPS clients (which usually are the browsers)
 >> do not cache the visited servers' certificates, fully relying
 >> on issuing CA's honesty. This introduces a risk of false sence
 >> of security.
 >> Hmmmm... It seems that keeping self-signed certificates is even
 >> more safe than relying on "trusted" CAs...

 > Dragging this back onto the original topic, hopefully, the above
 > concerns are far less relevant for a tool focused on downloading
 > packages from a single site. The gem utility could absolutely
 > pin its validation expectations to a single signing authority or
 > even to a single server certificate (and make it a configurable
 > list to support private package repositories and mirrors where
 > desired). The transport security implications for a system with
 > basically one distribution endpoint offer significantly different
 > solutions than a many-to-many association like Web browsing.

Yes - that's exactly the point why I started this subthread: signing
files is much more important than forcing people to connect via HTTPS.

Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin <gremlin ПРИ gremlin ТЧК ru>
GPG key ID: 0xEF3B1FA8, keyserver: hkp://
GPG key fingerprint: 8832 FE9F A791 F796 8AC9 6E4E 909D AC45 EF3B 1FA8

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Please check out the Open Source Software Security Wiki, which is counterpart to this mailing list.

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.