[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190326025937.GW23599@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 22:59:37 -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 Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 07:24:35AM +0530, vlse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 09:37:06PM -0400, Rich Felker wrote:
> > 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).
> >
>
> Yes. cgit over https. We need a secure start first.
>
> > > > 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.
> > > Receiving objects: 100% (31396/31396), 4.77 MiB | 3.17 MiB/s, done.
> > > Resolving deltas: 100% (22605/22605), done.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Nginx is bloat free I think. But perhaps not in comparison to thttpd.
> I will look how to support cgit http/s with thttpd using a hook.
>
> At skarnet.org, the author is using busybox httpd with cgi support and
> cgit cgi hooks to give http/s git access.
OK, that sounds promising. If it can be done with cgi, it should be
easy to setup, assuming the git client is forgiving of thttpd's
slightly non-conforming cgi behavior regarding headers.
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.
