Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Linus do you care what protocol? I'm patching Documentation and since >> the point is creating pull requests for you 'some people' don't matter. > > I actually tend to prefer the regular git:// protocol and signed tags. > > It's true that https should have the proper certificate and perhaps > help with DNS spoofing, but I'm not convinced that git won't just > accept self-signed random certs, and I basically don't think we should > trust that. git does not accept self-signed certs by default, at least in recent versions. Though you can do a trust-on-first-use type thing, by downloading the cert and telling git where to find it. So https does provide additional security vs git:// IMHO. There is some verification of the server and your data is encrypted on the wire. It's not like it would be trivial to MITM a git fetch to insert a malicious Makefile change, but it's also not *hard*. > In contrast, using ssh I would actually trust, but it's not convenient > and involves people sending things that aren't necessarily publicly > available. > > So instead, I prefer just using git:// and not trying to fool people > into thinking the protocol is secure - the security should come from > the signed tag. That's true, but only when you're pulling a signed tag, which for most people is not the common case. ... > That said, I actually would prefer even kernel.org repositories to > just send pull requests with signed tags, despite the protocol itself > being secure for that (and only that). Which you mention here. cheers -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
