4 ms·
I'm looking at the post you replied to. So maybe you replied to the wrong post, or ignore context and tried to be witty or smart. In context, what you say mak
by jasonlotito 14y ago
I'm looking at the post you replied to. So maybe you replied to the wrong post, or ignore context and tried to be witty or smart.
In context, what you say makes no sense.
Regardless, https would be better, but if you are that nervous as you suggest you are, then https doesn't solve your problem either. Neither does some hash thrown up on some site for you to compare against.
- Dylan16807 14y agoHere, how about I summarize my view of the conversation for you. aw3c2: 'curl | php' is creepy timaelliott: apt-get is just as scary kudos: no, it has signing udo: that's cargo cult me: no, it protects like https (meaning it authenticates and stops MitM) I was responding perfectly in context to point out how the protections apt-get have are useful. I also tied it back into the original comment but you can ignore that part if you like. I don't know why you think I was 'trying to be witty' and ignoring context.
- jasonlotito 14y agoAhh, gotcha, that better explains it. Still, https doesn't validate anything. You could add a certificate, but then that only means you are talking to the server assigned the cert, not that the actual package is good. I still stand by what I said: mountain and mole hills.