Igor Mozolevsky wrote this message on Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 19:17 +0000:
> On 10 December 2017 at 19:02, John-Mark Gurney <j...@funkthat.com> wrote:
>
> > Igor Mozolevsky wrote this message on Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 17:39 +0000:
> > > On 10 December 2017 at 17:32, John-Mark Gurney <j...@funkthat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > The discussion has been for svn updates over http, not for
> > freebsd-update
> > > > updates which are independantly signed and verified.. There is
> > currently
> > > > no signatures provided via SVN to validate any source received via
> > http.
> > >
> > > There has been no instance of in-transit compromise reported since SVN
> > was
> > > introduced.
> >
> > So, you require an exploit in the wild before you'll patch?
>
> No, I'm saying it's not a realistic threat model! If the threat is the
> integrity of the source code in transit, then it'd be way cheaper and way
> more reasonable to implement a Merkle Tree-like verification with each
> revision.
Then you should be fine w/ http for banking sites, since it's not realistic
that your ISP will MITM your connection to steal money from you, right?
I don't know of a single instance of an ISP MITM'ing banking transactions
to steal money.
--
John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579
"All that I will do, has been done, All that I have, has not."
_______________________________________________
freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
