> From: rbb@rkbloom.net [mailto:rbb@rkbloom.net]
> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 5:19 PM
> On 16 Jan 2003 cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>
>> <rbb@rkbloom.net> writes:
>>
>>> I still disagree that implementing #2 brings us to the same point as CVS.
>>> CVS only caches passwords to your disk if you are using :pserver:, which
>>> most sites just don't do unless they are offering anonymous CVS. (Yes,
>>> there are some that do, but it is rare).
>>>
>>> What that means, is that by implementing #2, you have brought subversion
>>> up to the very least that CVS does. This makes subversion useful for
>>> public access, but leaves it unsuitable for use with private passwords.
>>> Emulating a feature of CVS that most people consider to be a security
>>> problem does not sound like the correct way to replace CVS.
>>
>> IANA-SecurityGuy, but. Can't ra_svn be SSH-tunneled? If so, then it
>> would seem that that is a good mapping to CVS using :ext:SSH. And by
>> using mod_dav + SSL and disabling auth caching altogether, isn't that
>> an exact match of CVS's most secure model?
>
> Yes, ra_svn over SSH is exactly what CVS does. ra_dav + SSL without
> auth-caching is also perfectly secure. The only remaining problem (once
> passwords are moved out of the wc, is that the default is insecure, and
> the docs glance over the issue. The reason that svn-agent came up at all
> is because people want both security and auth-caching, which requires
> something like svn-agent.
Right. So to improve fast, move to option #2 (and change the default to
no-caching), and when svn-agent is done go for option #3.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 16 17:12:36 2003