linux-kernel - Re: git pull

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+55aFyMxkS=8JzZ+ROOAFkwR45EKBnQ0GUMQS4f+r_-fFWiEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 13:46:17 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     "Tobin C. Harding" <me@...in.cc>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        kernelnewbies@...nelnewbies.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: git pull

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@...in.cc> wrote:
>
> Linus do you care what protocol? I'm patching Documentation and since
> the point is creating pull requests for you 'some people' don't matter.

I actually tend to prefer the regular git:// protocol and signed tags.

It's true that https should have the proper certificate and perhaps
help with DNS spoofing, but I'm not convinced that git won't just
accept self-signed random certs, and I basically don't think we should
trust that.

In contrast, using ssh I would actually trust, but it's not convenient
and involves people sending things that aren't necessarily publicly
available.

So instead, I prefer just using git:// and not trying to fool people
into thinking the protocol is secure - the security should come from
the signed tag.

And then people can do this:

  [url "ssh://git@...olite.kernel.org"]
      insteadOf = https://git.kernel.org
      insteadOf = http://git.kernel.org
      insteadOf = git://git.kernel.org

which makes git.kernel.org addresses use ssh, and avoid the whole
possible DNS spoofing problem.

That said, I actually would prefer even kernel.org repositories to
just send pull requests with signed tags, despite the protocol itself
being secure for that (and only that).

Other hosts I will simply not trust without it because I can't do the above.

Side note: there's an unrelated advantage of using "git://" over
"https://". It means that people who do automation see that it's a git
repo. It also means, for example, that people that highlight https://
URL's and perhaps use them for spam marking hopefully don't do that
with git:// format.

              Linus