[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       full-disclosure
Subject:    Re: [Full-Disclosure] secure downloading of patches (Re: Knocking
From:       Cedric Blancher <blancher () cartel-securite ! fr>
Date:       2004-02-29 19:44:30
Message-ID: 1078083870.12474.5.camel () anduril ! intranet ! cartel-securite ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Le dim 29/02/2004 �  17:57, Martin Mačok a écrit :
> You are true that PGP is a stronger protection from this point of view
> but keep in mind that neither SSL nor PGP can protect us in the case
> of the compromised end point -- the server or developper's workstation
> in the case of SSL/TLS and the developper's workstation in the case of
> PGP.

Developper's private key compromission is quite unlikely to happen,
although it is clearly possible, especially if we think to Valve case
(code source steal through developper station compromise).

> From the other point of view, only SSL/TLS can protect you against the
> attacks on the transfer itself. For example, the attacker can poison
> your DNS cache and trick you into connecting to the site that does not
> provide the patch (so you stay vulnerable).

True, this is definitly a good point I didn't think of.

-- 
http://www.netexit.com/~sid/
PGP KeyID: 157E98EE FingerPrint: FA62226DA9E72FA8AECAA240008B480E157E98EE
>> Hi! I'm your friendly neighbourhood signature virus.
>> Copy me to your signature file and help me spread!

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]