Re: Security flaw caused by RC sigs [was: Release policy question]

On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:56:48PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 14:45 -0800, Christian Stork wrote:
> > > If we've reused the version number from a testing tarball, that would be
> > > a problem, but we've never considered reusing a version number because
> > > of a security flaw, only because of a packaging failure which caused
> > > build problems or the like. There is no security issue with
> > > substituting such a broken x.y.0 tarball for the real one.

> > OK, that makes sense then wrt to the testing tarballs (and should be
> > enshrined in the release policiy!).

> > But what's the point of the RC signatures then? For secure communication
> > among the developers?? Or are you just "practicing" the release process?

> I don't understand why what I said applies any differently to -rc
> releases than to regular ones.

I assumed that you made the distinction between
    
    testing tarballs, which contain the final release version string (eg
    1.4.0)
    
versus

    RC tarballs, which contain a non-final version string (eg
    1.4.0-rc3).

Maybe I read too much into that. It seems by "testing tarballs" you
meant the RC tarballs. Sorry for the confusion then.

-- 
Chris Stork   <>  Support eff.org!  <>   http://www.ics.uci.edu/~cstork/
OpenPGP fingerprint:  B08B 602C C806 C492 D069  021E 41F3 8C8D 50F9 CA2F
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org