From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 17 01:08:51 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBA016A4CE for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:08:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.206]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B71043D46 for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:08:51 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nocmonkey@gmail.com) Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id b11so341911rne for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:08:50 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=YgjSCAARQ+NG21GUySapRzmJc31FKpmzwvVWFTJmDEOdOzP6SdbhQB0l33SPB6y7OgdWBzYCxHtKEPVOLQbqVPfzY2xpxdJ66knh2QYkQAlbNrKCpcCz108GNU16Wghw91ftI99xvqRmf7k4r3eZCh0StWvjnDbllJAAsVizzjs= Received: by 10.38.102.12 with SMTP id z12mr1057047rnb; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:08:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.38.22.7 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:08:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:08:50 -0500 From: Danny To: questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20050317005927.GN91771@hub.freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <20050316233556.GM91771@hub.freebsd.org> <20050317005927.GN91771@hub.freebsd.org> cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Portsnap necessary? CVSup insecure? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Danny List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:08:51 -0000 On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:59:27 +0000, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:06:07PM -0500, Danny wrote: > > When is the last time a FreeBSD CVSup server was compromised - if ever? > > I don't know that it's ever happened. > > I don't know that that's really the threat model you should care about > anyway, since someone could compromise the master portsnap server as > well, just not any mirrors (but these are currently nonexistent > anyway, afaik). Alright, I think it's safe to say that I'll just have to try it out and see which one works best for me. Hopefully I haven't caused any unnecessary controversy, although I would like to hear other comparisons between the two. Thank you for your time, Kris. ...D