On 16 Dec 2002, Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If distcc is being tunneled over SSH, no such message digest would be > necessary. SSH does its own strong hashing, but it's SHA-1 and > designed to withstand cryptographic attacks. It should definately be > adequate to guarentee the integrity of distcc communications.
Yes. > Since distcc will hopefully support ssh as a transport natively, we > should keep this in mind and make the digest an optional part of the > protocol. So the question is whether the marginal cost of doing our own digest is so great as to make it worth varying the protocol and code path depending on whether ssh is used or not. I'd prefer simplicity unless there's a measurable difference. We might also consider whether it's worth compressing data going in to SSH, or whether we should rely on its optional compression. There might be some value in using an integrity check even for tunnelled connections. For example, I know some people use rsh (which doesn't have a md) for speed inside clusters, and they might want to use distcc. There have been ssh bugs that caused streamed connections to get corrupted, though I think not recently. -- Martin _______________________________________________ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe/change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
