X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:54:24 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: incomplete/corrupted setup.exe
Message-ID: <20100318015424.GA4949@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <1268766945 DOT 5263 DOT ezmlm AT cygwin DOT com>  <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 1003171042591 DOT 9914 AT mail3 DOT jubileegroup DOT co DOT uk>  <20100317150649 DOT GA29284 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>  <4BA17A9F DOT 2000808 AT monai DOT ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4BA17A9F.2000808@monai.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 05:58:07PM -0700, Steven Monai wrote:
>On 2010/03/17 8:06 AM, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Since I haven't seen any guarantees that adding https would fix this
>> problem I'm not convinced that this justifies the amount of work
>> involved.  So, until the mailing list is flooded with people who can't
>> download setup.exe because we don't have https access, I am satisfied
>> with not doing anything.
>
>That's too bad. Using SSL would nearly eliminate the risk of a MITM
>delivering a bogus setup.exe in place of the real thing to some
>unsuspecting user.
>
>As an alternative to setting up SSL on cygwin.com, what about the idea
>of crypto-signing (e.g. with gnupg) every release of setup.exe, and then
>posting the signature alongside the binary? I know I would breathe a
>little easier if I were able to positively verify the authenticity of a
>given setup.exe binary.
>
>The public key would need to be distributed via channels other than just
>cygwin.com, to make it more difficult to spoof. Fortunately, there are a
>number of public PGP/GPG key servers to fill that purpose.

Oh.  Are we still talking about this?  I drifted off.

Somebody please wake me when all of this tempest in a bikeshed is over.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple