Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't beingaccepted.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 10:23:33AM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Well, one could argue that basically nothing has changed. The threatening was
> > always there and always be there. And from time to time there's is and will be
> > a compromise. Nothing changed.
> Well, yes, there's a difference. As I pointed out previously, it makes
> not much sense trying to implement strict access controls from a small
> number of systems if OTOH, there's a much larger group of people for
> which the controls aren't relevant. If, however, without the large group
> of people, the to-be-closed-down group is sufficiently small (check),
> well-known (check), and the result if a break-in is potentially
> extremely harmful (check; ftp-master is, uh, ftp-master), then it
> suddenly makes a *lot* more sense to implement such access controls.
I don't disagree here, but the way of how this is going to be obtained is
questionable.
> > You can't totally secure an open project with thousands of developers.
> No, but you can secure a mirror archive network by restricting access to
> its main server, which is what James is doing. That's reasonable;
> hundreds of thousands of users depend on the integrity of our archive
> network every day; we can't risk, not even remotely, for the archive to
> be compromised.
But then again you should take care of other issues. IMHO, accessing
machines by pub keys intead of passwords makes it easier to compromise a
larger number of machines.
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
Reply to: