@Jesper: just to refine, it is just a matter of adding a custom settings.xml for the build/on the CLI (or override it in maven depending what the org wants) to enable back http so you still don't have to set SSL on nexus. Does it change your answer since the first point becomes no more fully accurate with that fact?
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le lun. 29 mars 2021 à 09:23, Som Lima <[email protected]> a écrit : > Any way thanks for the cli API > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2021, 08:18 Som Lima, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > When you put a url in a browser and hit enter. > > > > IF the url has to travel to a server on the intranet then an algorithm > > ensuring tight coupling will be executed. > > > > IF the url has to travel on the internet to get to a server then a > > completely different algorithm gets executed. > > > > The WAN algorithm relies on CHECKSUM to ensure data integrity. > > It is weak and prone to easy vulnerability. At the very minimum the user > > needs to implement encryption (HTTPS). > > > > > > The LAN algorithm is quite different, > > there is far more network traffic between two parties to ensure strong > > secure connection. > > > > API developers and application developers do not have access to this > > layer. It is transparent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2021, 08:03 Romain Manni-Bucau, <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I kind of agree intranet is as secure as the internet (ie a lot of > attacks > >> done last years were done on intranets). yes you are in a local vpc not > >> accessible from the outside but it is also where hackers try to enter > >> first > >> since then it is open bar for them. > >> That said it is very common to use http as a quick serving too - > thinking > >> to trainings and hacking sessions where a tomcat serves a local m2 for > >> example. > >> I guess this all lead to the fact we need to support HTTP anyway and > >> enable/document how to still use it in the coming version (and not > prevent > >> it in a hardcoded fashion). > >> In terms of security it would be left to the user to enable it > explicitly > >> - > >> defaults being secured, exactly as the 0-day vulnerability got fixed in > >> all > >> softwares. > >> Sounds more than relevant to me to enable that case while it is not the > >> default. > >> > >> That said, having this kind of toggle pushes to 3.6.4 more than all > others > >> by design then, no? > >> > >> Romain Manni-Bucau > >> @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >> <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > >> <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > >> https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >> LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >> < > >> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > >> > > >> > >> > >> Le lun. 29 mars 2021 à 08:51, Som Lima <[email protected]> a > écrit > >> : > >> > >> > I thought we were talking about computer programming algorithms. > >> > > >> > > >> > Social engineering is outside the scope of the discussion on the > >> subject > >> > of the algorithm devised in the invisible ( to API developers), > network > >> > layer implementation. > >> > > >> > The scope of discussion is that the intranet is a tightly coupled > comm > >> > system therefore secure by design. > >> > Imagine a couple holding each other tightly so no intruder, (third > >> party) > >> > can come in between and interfere. > >> > > >> > > >> > Meanwhile the internet (loosely coupled) due to physical limitations > >> could > >> > not be implemented using the same algorithm. > >> > It was left to users to work out the security which can be done using > >> > encryption (HTTPS) as one means of security. Other strategies are also > >> > available. Only the CHECKSUM was supplied as means of data integrity > by > >> the > >> > network Gods. > >> > > >> > Anybody want to talk about intraprocess (tight coupling) and > >> Interprocess > >> > (loose coupling) ? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 15:39 Markus KARG, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Nonsense. It is common sense that most criminal acts are spawned > from > >> > > within the local network, due to social engineering. > >> > > -Markus > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> > > Von: Som Lima [mailto:[email protected]] > >> > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. März 2021 15:06 > >> > > An: Maven Developers List > >> > > Betreff: Re: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or > >> other > >> > > > >> > > > BTW there should be an option to still use unsecure http as many > >> people > >> > > run http in their LANs. > >> > > > >> > > I could be wrong but I think the intranet is a tightly coupled comm > >> > system > >> > > therefore it is secure by design. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Sun, 28 Mar 2021, 13:31 Markus KARG, <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > We should not do any tricks or unexpected behavior but just stick > >> with > >> > > > SemVer. > >> > > > If there is a need for a security fix, it has to be 3.6.4 and BTW > >> there > >> > > > should be an option to still use unsecure http as many people run > >> http > >> > in > >> > > > their LANs. > >> > > > If it contains backwards-compatible features, it has to be 3.7.0. > >> > > > If it breaks backwards-compatibility, it has to be 4.0.0. > >> > > > In no case it can be 3.8.0. > >> > > > If mvnw was proposed for 3.7 but is not here now, then we either > >> have > >> > to > >> > > > wait with 3.7.0, or we have to tell people that we move mvnw to > 3.8 > >> or > >> > > 4.0. > >> > > > I do not see a need for any discussion at all, as SemVer is pretty > >> > clear > >> > > > about the sole correct answer. > >> > > > -Markus > >> > > > > >> > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> > > > Von: Romain Manni-Bucau [mailto:[email protected]] > >> > > > Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. März 2021 11:47 > >> > > > An: Maven Developers List > >> > > > Betreff: [DISCUSS] Next release version: 3.6.4, 3.7.0, 3.8.0 or > >> other > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi all, > >> > > > > >> > > > Before we reroll the failed 3.8.0 I'd like we discuss openly the > >> next > >> > > > versioning since it seems we didn't reach a consensus yet and > >> trying to > >> > > not > >> > > > create too much friction for users and in the community. > >> > > > > >> > > > As a reminder the only feature the release will get is to prevent > >> HTTP > >> > > repo > >> > > > (in favor of HTTPS ones). In that regard it is a breaking change > if > >> > users > >> > > > rely on HTTP repo but a security fix (I don't come back on the > HTTP > >> -> > >> > > > HTTPS move IT ecosystem got recently here). > >> > > > > >> > > > So it seems there are multiple versioning options: > >> > > > > >> > > > 1. 3.6.4: seems natural since it is a security fix, enables > >> companies > >> > to > >> > > > get this fix respecting a project versioning policy without having > >> to > >> > > > upgrade and avoids us to have to maintain 3.6 + 3.7/3.8 and soon > >> 4.x. > >> > > > Indeed it requires a very well documented paragraph about this > >> change > >> > and > >> > > > how to workaround it (local proxy/mirror is a trivial one for > >> example) > >> > > but > >> > > > it will be the case whatever version we pick anyway IMHO. > >> > > > 2. 3.7.0: since it is a breaking change it can seem natural too > (but > >> > has > >> > > > the pitfall to likely require a backport in 3.6 anyway, due to the > >> > > > versioning policies which can prevent some users to upgrade to a > >> 3.7) > >> > > > 3. 3.8.0: was the vote, seems the rational was that originally we > >> > > > targetting mvnw in 3.7 and since we didn't make it 3.8 was used. > >> Have > >> > to > >> > > > admit I'm not sure of this reasoning more than that (cause for me > >> if we > >> > > > don't have a planned feature we can either try to push/wait for it > >> or > >> > > > postpone it but not skip a version due to that) so if anyone wants > >> to > >> > > > complete the reasoning here it would be great. > >> > > > > >> > > > Indeed my preference is for 3.6.4 which has the most advantages > for > >> > > > everyone and no additional drawbacks compared to 3.7 or 3.8 > options > >> > until > >> > > > we try to push to get mvnw in which would mean 3.7 becomes more > >> natural > >> > > > (and likely imply a 3.6.x maintenance version). > >> > > > > >> > > > Goal of this thread is to feel the overall trend and see if we can > >> > refine > >> > > > the proposals (for example: can we drop 3.8 one and only keep 3.7 > >> and > >> > 3.6 > >> > > > or - best - can we refine it to a single version after some > >> exchanges). > >> > > > If we keep a few proposals after some days, what about a vote > where > >> the > >> > > > majority wins - we would just need to define how we count, > >> > > > bindings/committers/all (my preference being last one indeed)? > >> > > > > >> > > > Romain Manni-Bucau > >> > > > @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog > >> > > > <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog > >> > > > <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github < > >> > > > https://github.com/rmannibucau> | > >> > > > LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book > >> > > > < > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >
