[cryptography] Just how bad is OpenSSL ?

Nico Williams nico at cryptonector.com
Mon Nov 5 00:07:34 EST 2012


On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Ben Laurie <ben at links.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:26 AM, James A. Donald <jamesd at echeque.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 2012 7:50 AM, "Ben Laurie" <ben at links.org> wrote:
>>> The team has ruled out having the master at github.
>>
>> What is wrong with github?
>
> TBH, I wouldn't mind much, but I think the concern is that its not
> under our control.

It's just git, so keep multiple clone repos.  You could use an
internal one as the master and push updates to the github one if you
don't trust github -- use github to serve outsiders.  Really, what
matters is that you have one master repo and all other official repos
be read-only clones of it.  As with any master/slave failover/takeover
scheme you can always recover from the death of the master by
promoting a clone to master status.  So why not trust github?  Because
they've been hacked?  But if you keep multiple clones and people keep
private clones then you depend on git's use of SHA-1 Merkle hash trees
for security.  Or, if you want *private* repos, then you must either
run your own git servers or pay a github or gitorious.

Nico
--



More information about the cryptography mailing list