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: Network security manager Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:44:51 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87tx1wflnw.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <85a93pj1n5.fsf@stephe-leake.org> <87sihg7r73.fsf@alrua-karlstad.karlstad.toke.dk> <87a93oilxl.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87oas4h555.fsf@lifelogs.com> <8761ech0zm.fsf@lifelogs.com> 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 1416333628 28905 80.91.229.3 (18 Nov 2014 18:00:28 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:00:28 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 18 19:00:21 2014 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 1Xqn4f-0006jP-FW for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:00:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54592 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xqn4f-0003z9-6I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:00:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45324) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xqn4X-0003yw-Me for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:00:19 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xqn4Q-0002iK-GS for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:00:13 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:58201) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xqn4Q-0002hY-AN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 13:00:06 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xqmpr-00087a-8E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:45:03 +0100 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 ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:45:03 +0100 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 ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:45:03 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 37 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/5.130012 (Ma Gnus v0.12) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:+XCQc6mM55i5TJTQDE62Dw717qM= 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:177614 Archived-At: On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:36:25 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Ted Zlatanov writes: LMI> GPG isn't feasible because nobody wants to type passwords. >> >> Whuhh? LMI> Yeah? Let me rephrase: I don't think that's accurate :) >> Yes, it's a bother. We're talking about potentially dozens or hundreds >> of exceptions in a large enterprise. But let's assume the `a' key is >> large and easy to hit. >> >> Scenario 1: you allow a compromised server accidentally. You now can't >> review the exception list to remove that compromise. >> >> Scenario 2: someone allows a compromised server on purpose in a few >> seconds. You have no idea it happened. >> >> I'm sure there are other scenarios, but please don't make this a >> write-only data store. LMI> On the other hand, we could store the server names in plain text when we LMI> store security exceptions to make reviews easier. That is, keep the LMI> hash-only thing for STARTTLS man-in-the-middle tracking and the like, LMI> but if the user registers an exception, then we'd stash the server name LMI> in there, too. LMI> This would avoid leaving a complete list of STARTTLS servers in that LMI> file, but still allow easy removal of specific exceptions. Works for me, as long as I can customize it to always store the server name and port for all stored data. Ted