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 merge time? Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:46:52 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87sih7cjnn.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <87lhn7cfe0.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87egszcd3i.fsf@lifelogs.com> <87h9xvavjm.fsf@lifelogs.com> <874mtuc1hq.fsf@lifelogs.com> <871torfjk8.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 1416934022 29033 80.91.229.3 (25 Nov 2014 16:47:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 16:47:02 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 25 17:46:54 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 1XtJGP-00005H-KZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:46:53 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58343 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtJGP-0005Gj-5E for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:46:53 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42899) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtJG4-0005Em-GL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:46:38 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtJFy-0002ZH-LN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:46:32 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:48057) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XtJFy-0002Z8-Ee for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 11:46:26 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XtJFw-00086k-Ua for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:46:24 +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, 25 Nov 2014 17:46:24 +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, 25 Nov 2014 17:46:24 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 39 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:k65ygxawkaDIEI/QAuGLtjvGg8k= 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:178257 Archived-At: On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 17:30:36 +0100 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen wrote: LMI> Ted Zlatanov writes: >> I think we should now do the following: >> >> * deprecate `gnutls-verify-error' in favor of `network-security-level' >> >> * to help the migration, map :trustfiles and :hostname to 'medium (IIUC) LMI> I think that proper Professional Security Professionals won't trust that LMI> us lowly Emacs developers can get something as sacred as this stuff LMI> right, so they will still want to be able to instruct the gnutls library LMI> to refuse connections directly. But it will! It will simply look at `network-security-level' instead of the old variable. >> * add the ability to set the `network-security-level' per hostname regex LMI> I still don't see the use case. :-) The only reason to bump the level LMI> over `medium' is that the user is worried that the NSA is paying a rogue LMI> CA to issue certificates for your bank, and if you are, you should be LMI> running on `high' always. OK, you may be right. No need to overengineer it. LMI> And `medium' is so unintrusive that I hope that nobody will feel the LMI> need to run with `low'. If they feel that need, then we've misdesigned LMI> something. Such an optimist, you are. >> * put the 'gnutls customization group next to 'nsm under 'comm LMI> Yeah, that would be nice. Moved. Ted