4 ms·
I think you don't want to reveal the presence of projects by name or not -- just the name of repo could be sensitive info, potentially.
by dilap 3y ago
I think you don't want to reveal the presence of projects by name or not -- just the name of repo could be sensitive info, potentially.
- tmpz22 3y agoExcept they know you've accessed it previously. Its a different threat model that leaves room for a little more agency to be given to the user.
- mro_name 3y agoIt shouldn't be on github then. At all.
- mp05 3y agoWhy the downvotes? If you want real security, self-host your Git repo.
- lanstin 3y agoWhich is neither difficult nor against the design of git.
- cyberax 3y agoI'll bite. So you want to host a git repo. You need to manage SSH keys then, and then you'll want bug tracking and PRs for code reviews. This means that you need to host something like Gitlab, which is not free if you want features like SSO.
- junon 3y agoIn the old days this was done over email. "PRs" are a GitHub thing, not a Git thing.
- dboreham 3y agoGitea has SSO and is free.
- mro_name 3y agoI'll defend. > just the name of repo could be sensitive info The phrase "sensitive info" tells me disclosing it to a mass code hoster bare any liability deems irresponsible. Remember Eric Schmidt about privacy on the internet? Choose your priorities.
- 3c6bYDXLMj 3y agoNo true Scotsman! Throw your computer into a lake! Write your new darknet market ecommerce platform on sticky notes! Why is “security” always a pissing constant with some people. I’d swear that I’d be condemned for locking my house at night instead of simply encasing myself in concrete for all eternity like Chernobyl. After all, it’s more secure!
- __MatrixMan__ 3y agoI understand the reason for it. I just don't think it's worth the price we continually pay in debugging time.