2 ms·

I am aware of that, yes. Layered security and privacy of which packages you've downloaded are the two most compelling arguments in favor of SSL that I've seen i

I am aware of that, yes. Layered security and privacy of which packages you've downloaded are the two most compelling arguments in favor of SSL that I've seen in this thread. But I think it's reasonable to talk about security systems by giving the developers the benefit of the doubt that their code doesn't have exploitable bugs. My main point is that, assuming it's implemented without bugs, PGP is more secure than SSL, and that SSL alone would be worse than PGP alone. Combining them would be an improvement, but I'm rejecting the idea that the current design is insecure. Having the package maintainers personally tell you their package's checksums would have also prevented this problem, but it's clearly not practical. Sometimes SSL isn't practical. If you can design a system which is secure without it, it is an improvement, but not a requirement.

zaarn 8y ago
>assuming it's implemented without bugs, The problem with this assumption is that available evidence points towards software inevitable having, developing or gaining bugs in the implementation (through existing code, through new code or through new threat vectors respectively). The current design isn't insecure but it could be more secure at little cost. In current times, SSL is fairly practical and easy to use, a lot of popular webservers either have or are developing ACME certificate mechanisms (including nginx and apache to my knowledge). Due to the low cost, designing SSL into the system should be a requirement since it's an improvement of low cost with great effect.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  Sure, all software tends to have bugs and using multiple layers of security is a defense against this. But the assumption of bugs is not a logical foundation for a discussion of the design. Sure, if it's practical Alpine should deploy SSL. I'm just dispelling the idea that the PGP-based approach is insecure.

zaarn 8y ago

>assuming it's implemented without bugs, The problem with this assumption is that available evidence points towards software inevitable having, developing or gaining bugs in the implementation (through existing code, through new code or through new threat vectors respectively). The current design isn't insecure but it could be more secure at little cost. In current times, SSL is fairly practical and easy to use, a lot of popular webservers either have or are developing ACME certificate mechanisms (including nginx and apache to my knowledge). Due to the low cost, designing SSL into the system should be a requirement since it's an improvement of low cost with great effect.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
Sure, all software tends to have bugs and using multiple layers of security is a defense against this. But the assumption of bugs is not a logical foundation for a discussion of the design. Sure, if it's practical Alpine should deploy SSL. I'm just dispelling the idea that the PGP-based approach is insecure.