From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [PATCH] package.el: check tarball signature Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 06:03:14 -0400 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <877gdsrq59.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> References: <874n92x9em.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87fvsk9m8b.fsf-ueno@gnu.org> <877gdutp1l.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <83pprkc02t.fsf@gnu.org> <87fvsgspq3.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <8761tcpnbn.fsf-ueno@gnu.org> <87zjqol1gh.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> Reply-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1380967409 13035 80.91.229.3 (5 Oct 2013 10:03:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2013 10:03:29 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 05 12:03:32 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VSOhv-0000ks-Mh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:03:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51344 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VSOhv-0001W0-7J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 06:03:31 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37179) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VSOhn-0001U8-Ry for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 06:03:29 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VSOhi-0000Y8-O4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 06:03:23 -0400 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:41966) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VSOhi-0000Y3-He for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 06:03:18 -0400 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VSOhh-0000YU-0f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:03:17 +0200 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:03:17 +0200 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 05 Oct 2013 12:03:17 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 23 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6; d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:PlKWUsS2zXmMUQruPr4IgiwPlcg= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:163871 Archived-At: On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 14:40:46 +0900 "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote: SJT> Daiki Ueno writes: >> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> >> > I can put up my current patch for review but I still have HMAC, maybe >> > UMAC, and RSA+DSA+ECC crypto to finish. The hashing methods and the >> > ciphers in ECB, CBC, and CTR modes are done with tests. Should I make a >> > Bazaar branch for that work? Is anyone interested in reviewing it? ... SJT> Still, the whole idea worries me; there's no reason to suppose it will SJT> increase security, and Ted never has seemed to grasp that security is SJT> not a SMOP, nor that security is inherently inconvenient. I find that mildly offensive. SJT> Quis custodiat ipsos custodes? Do you really want to put a SJT> possible fox in charge of the security check at the henhouse door? My work will be open for review before it goes in. I suggest you criticize the work, not me or my motivations. Ted