Yes, that's what I gathered was meant. Going into PKI and code signing, however, I assumed he meant signing and verifying the underlying source code, and navigating the trees, I haven't noticed that. Evidently he meant signing binary packages. In that case, I can kind of understand the requirement - particularly for business - but whether it's worth it is up to the OpenBSD team, not me. :) I'm having trouble seeing how somebody could easily manage to get a compromised binary onto OpenBSD servers. Seems more trouble to implement then it's worth. On Dec 5, 2007 7:13 PM, Dave Ewart <davee@sungate.co.uk> wrote:
| David Newall | Re: Slow DOWN, please!!! |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 005/196] Chinese: add translation of SubmittingDrivers |
| Fred . | Please add ZFS support (from GPL sources) |
| Andi Kleen | Please pull ACPI updates |
git: | |
| Peter Stahlir | Git as a filesystem |
| linux | [DRAFT] Branching and merging with git |
| Jakub Narebski | [PATCH 2/n] gitweb: Use '&iquot;' instead of '?' in esc_path |
| Junio C Hamano | Re: irc usage.. |
| Theo de Raadt | That whole "Linux stealing our code" thing |
| Koh Choon Lin | OBSD on MacBook |
| Floor Terra | Re: bcw(4) is gone |
| William Boshuck | Re: Real men don't attack straw men |
| Jim Winstead Jr. | Re: Root Disk/Book Disk Compatibility |
| Desmond A. Kirkpatrick | ATI GUP bug with Linux 'tickler' |
| David C. Niemi | Re: rsh: "rcmd: socket: Permission denied" |
| Theodore Ts'o | Re: help again and again |
