On 07/10/2018 11:30 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 11:28:34AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 07/10/2018 11:23 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Wei Liu writes ("Re: [PATCH 2/2] MAINTAINERS: use https for git trees"):
>>>> On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 02:36:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 10.07.18 at 10:15, <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's wrong with git:// ? I think the commit message should be non-
>>>>> empty here.
>>>>
>>>> git: is not encrypted, while https: is. At this time of age, it is
>>>> better to use encryption as much as possible.
>>>
>>> I agree with this change, so
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Ian Jackson <[email protected]>
>>>
>>>
>>> Let me expand on Wei's reasons:
>>>
>>> The git protocol is not just unencrypted, but also unauthenticated.
>>> In theory it is possible to verify the signed tags for actual
>>> releases, but that is a cumbersome process which I very much doubt
>>> anyone really does.
>>>
>>> As for the various branch tips, there is currently no way (unless you
>>> have a shell account on xenbits) to get any kind of authenticated
>>> value.
>>>
>>> Conversely, if you use an https url, you get some cryptographic
>>> authentication of what you are cloning. The crypto there is far from
>>> perfect but it is massively better than nothing.
>>
>> I agree with this logic, but it should have been in the commit message.
>
> Alright. I took it for granted that everyone would think the more
> encryption the better.
>
> I will put what Ian wrote into the commit message.
Well in general, the more things are encrypted, the less conspicuous
encrypted traffic looks. But on the other hand, there may be other
costs with switching from git to https -- more server computation time,
longer download time, &c. If it were just a general "make more
encrypted traffic to make encryption of actual secrets more safe", I
don't think it would be worth degrading performance / increasing server
compute time. But for an extra level of authentication, I think it's
worth it.
And in any case, I think it's almost always worth at least a brief line
for the archaeologists. Imagine 10 years down the road someone wants to
know why it changed -- was it because we shut down the git servers? Was
it because https was measured as being faster? Was it to get around
firewalls? Or was is just to improve authentication? It may matter.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
