The warning message might have its value if a user just copied and pasted the code from somewhere. Sergey.
On 2018-07-04, 07:45, "Thomas DELTEIL" <[email protected]> wrote: Agree that we should never push code that has a download with the flag disabled. But I don't see a problem having a flag to disable ssl verification if users want to put themselves at risk. I don't think à warning is necessary as long as the API wording is scary enough. All the best, Thomas On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 06:50 kellen sunderland <[email protected]> wrote: > I'd agree with Sheng and Pedro. I would also not put a warning message in > place when the function is explicitly called with SSL verification turned > off. I would assume if the code author intentionally disables verification > that the message being displayed would not provide value. > > -Kellen > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 3:42 PM Pedro Larroy <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Agree with Sheng. Not always a website has trusted SSL cert, and you > might > > still want to download cat and elephant pictures from it. (I checked some > > usages of this function). > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 9:47 AM Marco de Abreu > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Thanks for raising this issue Sheng. > > > > > > My proposal would be to always print a warning message when this > function > > > is called with the ssl check disabled. This functionality would be > tested > > > by a unit test which mocks the network access. > > > > > > Additionally, I'd like to propose that we set a policy for ourselves > that > > > we as MXNet community never submit any code that has this flag disabled > > and > > > rather ensure that the servers we are using are properly secured with > > > correct ssl certificates. > > > > > > -Marco > > > > > > Sheng Zha <[email protected]> schrieb am Mi., 4. Juli 2018, 08:58: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > This is a follow-up discussion from PR-11546 > > > > < > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/11546#pullrequestreview-134215477 > > > > > > > > > per > > > > suggestion from Marco. The proposed approach is to add an option to > > allow > > > > users who call the download function to explicitly turn off ssl > > > > verification. The default behavior is unchanged (i.e. always verify). > > > From > > > > the comments so far: > > > > > > > > Pros: > > > > Users can use this function to download from trusted links that don't > > > have > > > > proper ssl cert set-up, only by disabling this option explicitly. > > Without > > > > this option, the download function cannot be used in such case. > > > > > > > > Cons: > > > > Vulnerable to MITM when disabled. > > > > > > > > My take on this is that having such option is better, since download > > > > function can be useful in more scenarios. I'd like to hear from > others > > if > > > > there are scenarios that this approach is absolutely not acceptable. > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > -sz > > > > > > > > > >
