From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 24 03:35:13 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CE889FD for ; Sat, 24 May 2014 03:35:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 279EC22B8 for ; Sat, 24 May 2014 03:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id l18so5473370wgh.2 for ; Fri, 23 May 2014 20:35:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kscQarwf+torBdGL2X2wKSzdwVaTNWh33SHp6YMxPGE=; b=p0jMyeplGznz5pWv1RdI7/fCddGGk6N2+vh1Y7jxZVeAblRGyZFGg8xNZKK/4nhFMh MpdAosZrSE7ID5ReOIQPLA1mGniiSfeDdCph1N2y/Bqyh/rLz1ogzCg06H704ZzBal/6 FdLRaEJt6DB2NGcA7LYpur0fu43zxfdKMw+CNyhSZ7oe7YyPy+tir42KEsBBmhretnYt 0SLxZj1thHVStdK3DeXiQ06qSSEELnqQLvfBhhgdJGEHyjTdGYftjPVfnja0KtXdOAzB F+T3vcJYPIwWFTwarVqci3EJWzlMi5NhNlEnBs3faitj9RBe5FpMz8yD6RKElB4KTTk5 QOrg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.222.197 with SMTP id qo5mr6617564wjc.78.1400902509968; Fri, 23 May 2014 20:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.43.194 with HTTP; Fri, 23 May 2014 20:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: David.I.Noel@gmail.com In-Reply-To: <537B0522.8090109@gmail.com> References: <537A704D.6010209@gmail.com> <537B0522.8090109@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 22:35:09 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: MITM attacks against portsnap and freebsd-update From: David Noel To: Alnis Morics Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 03:35:13 -0000 On 5/20/14, Alnis Morics wrote: > On 05/20/2014 09:51, n j wrote: >> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:03 AM, David Noel wrote: >>> On 5/19/14, Alnis Morics wrote: >>>> On 05/19/2014 23:28, David Noel wrote: >>>>> I also think it would be an appropriate time to discuss retiring portsnap. >>>> Subversion checkouts and updates take much more time than Porstnap. >>> My experience has been that both portsnap and svn update typically >>> take under a minute to complete. >>> >>> Regardless, don't most people run this in the background with portsnap >>> cron? >>> >> I don't. And I don't regularly update the ports tree. >> >> When you regularly update ports tree, the diffs svn update needs to pull >> are relatively small. When you update, say, once a month, portsnap in my >> experience gets the job done a lot quicker. >> >> My $.02, > Exactly. And "svn checkout" is incomparably slower than "portsnap fetch > extract". It wasn't a terribly popular suggestion on the security list either. It's unfortunate that svn doesn't work for your use case -- it was a painless transition for me. The proposal was based on a "least amount of work required" model. Now we're actually going to have to find someone who has the time free to patch portsnap!