security projects thoughts

[Jeff Johnson]

On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:03 AM, Arno Hautala wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 09:55, Jeff Johnson <n3npq at mac.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> So let's say you're for some reason using the MacPorts sudo instead of
>>> the system shipped version (maybe the system version is out of date
>>> and insecure). You're updating your ports at a cafe and someone spoofs
>>> the update for the sudo port. With signed portfiles and packages they
>>> can't [1]. With the current scheme, they can spoof the portfile and
>>> replace the package source and hash.
>>> 
>> 
>> Sure "Let's say ..." whatever. The answer is the same:
>>        If you are worried abt sudo in MacPorts as a threat vector, nuke it.
>> There's no loss of functionality using the system sudo.
>> 
>>> [1] Or at least they'd have to spoof the initial MacPorts
>>> installation, but at least signed packages and portfiles have shut
>>> down some exploit avenues.
>>> 
>> 
>> How has the existence (or not) of digital signatures "shut down some exploits"?
>> Which exploits? Name them please.
> 
> It's hard to name an exploit that can be mitigated when the idea is
> shot down with "If you're worried about X, don't use X."
> 

I'm not at all sure why you think my comments qualify as "shot down".

I am in fact just a lurker here, with an opinion no different than your own,
no means to approve/reject anything, and have indeed provided "constructive criticism"
albeit harshly (and rigorously).

If that constitutes "shot down", well I guess I have your vote when I run for office.
Thank you!

73 de Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4645 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20110418/b37483fd/attachment-0001.bin>