Package shipping their own CA and security

[Reindl Harald]

Am 08.02.2013 13:05, schrieb Florian Weimer:
> On 02/08/2013 12:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 08.02.2013 12:54, schrieb Florian Weimer:
>>> On 02/08/2013 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
>>>
>>>> For a certificate, that's slightly more subtle. A certificate alone in a
>>>> package cannot do much. If there is no private key, then it cannot be
>>>> used out of the box, except for client side validation ( afaik ). So
>>>> all .pam certificates we can find would be used to validate another ssl
>>>> certificates.
>>>
>>> Embedding a certificate in a RPM is fine because we can handle revocation/key rollover through an RPM
>>> update—especially if it's not a configuration file.  We might eventually get a better mechanism, but until that
>>> happens, it's not so bad.
>>>
>>> (This assumes that we own the certificate in question.  Obviously, it won't do to download the certificate from the
>>> Internet, bake it in, and hope that it won't change until it expires.  That's just not going to work.)
>>
>> it is NOT fine, it is just stupid
>> the certificate is broken after that
>>
>> any random guy out there can missuse it and your users
>> which trust the certificate are
> 
> Please mind your language.

my language was moderate

> Evidently, we are not talking about the same thing.  I was referring to server 
> certificates baked in to clients, in case this wasn't clear.

"Package shipping their own CA and security" is clearly server side
so maybe you should not switch to another topic without state that

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 263 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20130208/4a66ac0f/attachment.sig>