Re: Package XYZ is not signed

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Am Donnerstag, den 25.10.2007, 22:51 -0400 schrieb Will Woods:
> This has been discussed a bunch of times already. Rawhide packages
> aren't signed. This is intentional.

That's nice. So I'll stop testing rawhide now because I don't know where
the packages are from. Conveniently jumping off and on the security
bandwagon at different stages in the release is a bit churlish.

It only takes one malicious unsigned package to be installed for the box
to be compromised, and nothing will protect against that.

Come on though, we have auto-signing now, what was the killer reason for
unsigned rpms?

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux