From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Nov 17 23:53:40 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BED857B
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:53:40 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from lx@redundancy.redundancy.org)
Received: from redundancy.redundancy.org (75-101-96-57.dsl.static.sonic.net
 [75.101.96.57]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D2198FC0C
 for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:53:39 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 6386 invoked by uid 1001); 17 Nov 2012 23:43:13 -0000
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:43:13 -0759
From: David Thiel <lx@FreeBSD.org>
To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Recent security announcement and csup/cvsup?
Message-ID: <20121117234248.GB11298@redundancy.redundancy.org>
References: <20121117150556.GE24320@in-addr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20121117150556.GE24320@in-addr.com>
X-OpenPGP-Key-fingerprint: 482A 8C46 C844 7E7C 8CBC 2313 96EE BEE5 1F4B CA13
X-OpenPGP-Key-available: http://redundancy.redundancy.org/lx.gpg
X-Face: %H~{$1~NOw1y#%mM6{|4:/<p]y9X%E+4%:1wo-M!re,
 zl.qH~yzbL-MWhtp$3QuKP&di/a{FOctD[FuX.\n4U*,
 M{TJg$oYp663.NyX!%H~~Tw$eR9xZU5W?1BM#t"a@'27^2x
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Security issues \[members-only posting\]"
 <freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-security@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-security-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 23:53:40 -0000

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:05:33AM -0500, Gary Palmer wrote:
> Can someone explain why the cvsup/csup infrastructure is considered insecure
> if the person had access to the *package* building cluster?  Is it because
> the leaked key also had access to something in the chain that goes to cvsup, 
> or is it because the project is not auditing the cvsup system and so the
> default assumption is that it cannot be trusted to not be compromised?

Regardless of the circumstances of the incident, use of cvsup/csup has 
always been horrendously dangerous. People should regard any code 
retrieved over this channel to have been potentially compromised by a 
network attacker. 

Portsnap. Srsly.

-David