[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190326013706.GV23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 21:37:06 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Supporting git access via smart HTTPS protocol for
musl-libc
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:17:26PM -0500, A. Wilcox wrote:
> On 03/25/19 20:09, vlse wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Would musl-libc support git access via smart HTTPS protocol.
> > As git man page says as well as stackoverflow site that using git protocol
> > is fine for lan operations.
> > But for internet git access, either ssh or https smart protocol use
> > is necessary to prevent man in the middle attack.
>
> This is more an argument for signing commits so that they are
> cryptographically provable. HTTPS is trivial to MITM, especially for
> the kind of actors that would care enough to MITM musl at all.
>
> Threat models, people.
The request is reasonable. HTTPS is *not* "trivial to MITM", and
essentially impossible to do so without detection and a trail of
responsibility, especially now that CT logs are a thing. However,
until breaking sha1 (much worse than it's broken now) is practical,
you can also verify authenticity of a git repo via "git fsck" and a
known good source of the commit hash (e.g. cgit over https).
> > Please consider giving secure git access. Also smart http/s protocol
> > is way better than dumb protocol. It avoids downloading too much data
> > again and also shows progress and stats.
>
>
> There is absolutely no difference in transmitted data between the Git
> protocol and the HTTP Git transport, other than the useless overhead of
> HTTP messages, which actually skews favour towards the Git protocol.
> Also, the Git protocol is in my experience much much faster.
>
> The Git transport definitely can show progress and stats, the same as
> the HTTP transport:
>
> awilcox on gwyn [pts/18 Mon 25 20:13] ~: git clone
> git://git.musl-libc.org/musl
> Cloning into 'musl'...
> remote: Counting objects: 31396, done.
> remote: Compressing objects: 100% (12589/12589), done.
> remote: Total 31396 (delta 22605), reused 25698 (delta 18440)
> Receiving objects: 100% (31396/31396), 4.77 MiB | 3.17 MiB/s, done.
> Resolving deltas: 100% (22605/22605), done.
>
>
> (It did show the progress as it was downloading, but since I am on a
> fairly fast link, I couldn't copy it.)
>
> Personally I would be okay with musl offering an HTTP(S) transport as an
> option, but please do not take away the Git transport. It is much
> faster in my experience. Every second wasted on stupid HTTP traffic is
> a second of my life I can't get back.
Of course the git transport won't be taken away. I'd like to add https
support, but I'm not sure how to do it without a nasty bloated httpd
that would increase server resource requirements by 1-2 orders of
magnitude. If anyone knows a way to hook up thttpd to it, I'll give it
a try.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
