From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 29 22:50:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3F2816A4CE for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:50:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E9B243D2D for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:50:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i216oJbv090716 for ; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:50:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i216oJoM090715; Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:50:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 22:50:19 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200403010650.i216oJoM090715@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) Subject: Re: ports/63546: ports/security/libprelude - fetch PGP signature X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Thomas-Martin Seck List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:50:19 -0000 The following reply was made to PR ports/63546; it has been noted by GNATS. From: tmseck-lists@netcologne.de (Thomas-Martin Seck) To: bug-followup@freebsd.org Cc: Subject: Re: ports/63546: ports/security/libprelude - fetch PGP signature Date: 1 Mar 2004 06:49:38 -0000 * Jason Harris [gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports.bugs]: > On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 10:23:33PM +0100, Oliver Eikemeier wrote: > >> Unfortunate, but I guess we can fix this. I hope I made my point without >> offending you, but blindly downloading and verifying a PGP signature is >> actually *less* secure than the md5 checksum in distinfo, and worse, it >> gives a false sense of security. I agree with you here. > No offense taken - your presumptions about security plague many. This has -- IMO -- nothing to do with security. It is already the (unwritten) maintainer's duty to verify a signed distfile and it is (or really should be) the committer's duty to do the same. The only purpose of an automated check on the user's end would just be a check whether a maintainer/committer was careless or part of a grand "let's trojan FreeBSD" conspiracy.