From owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct 27 11:31:50 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-security@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9876F16A4DA; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:31:47 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from www.cyclades.de (mail.cyclades.de [62.225.173.194])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CEEC243D31; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:31:46 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from mh@kernel32.de)
Received: from [192.168.10.148] (helo=[192.168.10.148])
	by www.cyclades.de with asmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1CMm1m-0001rl-00; Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:31:42 +0200
Message-ID: <417F8706.8060009@kernel32.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:31:18 +0200
From: Marian Hettwer <Mh@kernel32.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (X11/20040928)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no>
References: <417EAC7E.2040103@wadham.ox.ac.uk> <xzp654wiffv.fsf@dwp.des.no>
In-Reply-To: <xzp654wiffv.fsf@dwp.des.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: 
cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating
X-BeenThere: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security issues [members-only posting]
	<freebsd-security.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:31:51 -0000



Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk> writes:
> 
>>CVSup is slow, insecure, and a memory hog.
> 
> 
> if cvsup is slow, you're not using it right.
> 
> I'm sure portsnap is a wonderful piece of software, but there's no
> need to spread FUD about cvsup to promote it.
>
ACK.
I don't believe cvsup is slow. Well, at least it's not slower than 
Gentoo's emerge (rsync based AFAIK) or OpenBSD's way of just using 
anonCVS via ssh.

However, cvsup _is_ insecure and I don't like that it's based on 
modula3. I really have no program which uses m3 apart from CVSUP.

So, well, perhaps portsnap is a nice replacement. Who knows ? :)
(ah, jeah, Colin knows ;-D )

best regards,
Marian