3 ms·
Absolutely not. We said our updater using HTTP is secure, since the updates are cryptographically signed, like APT. The first download is HTTPS-all-the-way sin
by jbk 8y ago
Absolutely not. We said our updater using HTTP is secure, since the updates are cryptographically signed, like APT.
The first download is HTTPS-all-the-way since a long time: search engines get you the HTTPS version of videolan.org that redirects you to HTTPS-only mirrors (not controlled by us).
However, as we do not control the mirrors and the mirrors content, this is not secure, but so far, there is no solution (until universal SRI).
- Avamander 8y ago> We said our updater using HTTP is secure, since the updates are cryptographically signed, like APT. With a 1024bit DSA key last I heard, not very secure. And that is assuming the updater doesn't contain other flaws. The same assumption APT people made, which, who the could have guessed, was wrong. > there is no solution (until universal SRI). For first initial download, indeed, unless you ship using Windows Store for example.
- jbk 8y ago> With a 1024bit DSA key last I heard, not very secure. Breaking encryption of DSA and doing fake DSA messages are 2 very different tasks. > And that is assuming the updater doesn't contain other flaws. And you believe that a full TLS stack will have less flaws than a DSA-check? That Gnutls is simpler than gcrypt? Your argument about flaws would push to have simpler code, not more complex one.
- Avamander 8y agoI believe a full TLS stack has more scrutiny than your self-built DSA-check.