linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] m68k: Replace HTTP links with HTTPS ones

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]

Date:   Sun, 19 Jul 2020 17:51:03 +1000 (AEST)
From:   Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To:     "Alexander A. Klimov" <grandmaster@...klimov.de>
cc:     geert@...ux-m68k.org, funaho@...ai.org,
        linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k: Replace HTTP links with HTTPS ones

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020, Alexander A. Klimov wrote:

> *Sigh* ... yes, doing everything one nice day is better that doing just 
> something right now.

I wasn't saying "do everything possible or else do nothing". I was trying 
to point to the larger problem. The http links in the kernel source hardly 
seem to matter when nothing I read on HTTPS links is trustworthy.

> But doing just something right now is better that doing nothing at all.
> 

HTTPS is not new. MITM attack is as old as the Byzantian hills. Your 
rationale for doing "something right now" is apparently that you trust the 
people who maintain "kernel developers" browsers but mistrust the people 
who maintain some network links and switches. That's fine and you should 
set your policy accordingly. But you should not be surprised if others 
have different threat models -- especially when you fail to offer an 
actual case where this patch might have helped.