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

Re: Complaint

On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 09:05:39AM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:

> Remember, these machines are, behind the archives, perhaps the most
> implicity trusted machines in the entire project. Compromise the archives,
> and you can silently sprinkle trojans throughout any package on any port.
> Compromise a buildd, and you can silently sprinkle trojans throughout any
> newly compiled package on one port.

Well, compromise the machine of some DDs and you have the same. Compromising
machines opens are serious security issue regardless for what the machine is
> On the other hand, blowing away a machine without losing the *valuble* data
> on it, then manually checking that data before it goes onto anything new,
> along with a complete reinstall, can be a pretty non-trivial task, and one
> that often requires console access - which, in itself, may be a non-trivial
> task for a number of these machines.

You don´t need to tell me that. I´m doing my work mainly remotely, sometimes
with hundreds or thousands of km between the machine and me, including
kernel updates and remote installations. 

> Why should it be easier to get the machines Ryan works with regularly
> running again? Probably because he knows how to arrange any required
> access, where there might be data that needs to be copied/inspected, what
> that data might be, and what it SHOULD look like, along with probably
> having installed the machines in question at least once, and thus being
> familiar with any quirks they may have. Oh, and he can probably GET to
> them, which may well be physically impossible for him with others.

No, I doubt that Ryan travelled to Germany to get the buildds up again. 

> Thus, he probably has little choice, in some cases, but to depend on others
> to deal with some of hte work, and try to coordinate with them (some of

Try to coordinate? When there would have been a try to cooperate by him, I
wouldn´t complain... but I do complain. 

> whom may be as much as 10 hours offset from him, which I can tell you
> from experience coordinating things between the US and the "Far East",
> is no small handicap). And, as has been pointed out to you, it has been
> *one* business day since the 12th, assuming that message went out at the
> beginning of the 12th and not the end.

And as pointed out by me, It´s more than 1 business day. 

Ciao...              // 
      Ingo         \X/

Reply to: