On Wednesday 18 July 2007, Scott wrote: > So how will signing just the updates.rdf be a better way then? > > Let's just assume that at some point a hacker figures out a way to > bypass that little bit of info, which is entirely possible, and sends an > botnet addon in its place? > > I just do not see how just signing the RDF will make anything *safer*. > If you want real security then I would implement signing both files. > That would guarantee that everything is coming from the right place and > person.
Signing both the updates.rdf and the XPI *is* better; the proposal is focused on the updates process since *that* is the easiest exploit. Please read the proposal for details on why this is better/safer: http://wiki.mozilla.org/User:Mossop:Fx-Docs:AddonUpdateSecurity http://wiki.mozilla.org/User_talk:Mossop:Fx-Docs:AddonUpdateSecurity -Doug
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Project_owners mailing list [email protected] http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/project_owners
