Hopefully somebody's doing some kind of integrity check pre-release no matter where it's hosted... :)
In either case, happy to help if it is manhours you need, and I'm sure others on this list are as well. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Aaron Grattafiori < aa...@digitalinfinity.net> wrote: > Thank god... > On Oct 30, 2012 7:50 AM, "Ben Laurie" <b...@links.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Patrick Mylund Nielsen >> <cryptogra...@patrickmylund.com> wrote: >> > I would be happy to volunteer to move everything to Github. But it >> really is >> > really, really easy to do, and the maintenance required is minimal. >> That or >> > git+redmine or git+JIRA would be my suggestion. >> >> The team has ruled out having the master at github. >> >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Ben Laurie <b...@links.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Matthew Green < >> matthewdgr...@gmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > So: >> >> > >> >> > 1. What is the process by which you get OpenSSL contributors to >> notice a >> >> > serious issue and apply a patch? >> >> >> >> I wouldn't know, I haven't tried :-) >> >> >> >> In my case, just ask (me, that is, not some mailing list). If the >> >> issue is serious, I will likely apply the patch. >> >> >> >> > 2. What are the criteria for applying a patch? Is it just 'whatever >> >> > interests the devs'? It seems that publishing an exploit works, but >> is that >> >> > necessary? >> >> >> >> I think it can be taken as read that the devs are interested in the >> >> security and stability of OpenSSL. >> >> >> >> > 3. It's 2012 -- why the **** is OpenSSL running its own ticket >> tracker >> >> > and source control servers??? (RT is a disaster.) >> >> >> >> Damn good question. Probably because we don't have a volunteer to move >> >> everything somewhere else and keep it running. >> >> >> >> > 4. What does it take to become an OpenSSL volunteer? >> >> >> >> :-) Like most (good) open source projects: sustained contribution. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Matt >> >> > >> >> > On Oct 30, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Ben Laurie <b...@links.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Jeffrey Walton < >> noloa...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Ben Laurie <b...@links.org> wrote: >> >> >>>> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Jeffrey Walton < >> noloa...@gmail.com> >> >> >>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM, John Case <c...@sdf.org> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> [SNIP] >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Apparently you think the best way to get a secure platform is to >> >> >>>> apply >> >> >>>> pressure through pointless security standards. I'd suggest your >> >> >>>> efforts might be better spent supplying patches instead. Or, >> y'know, >> >> >>>> talking to the authors of the s/w in question. You never know, >> they >> >> >>>> might care. >> >> >>> Ah, OK. My bad. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I've tried supplying patches and filing bug report/enhancement >> >> >>> requests. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Here was a gentle patch for spelling corrections in a README - >> >> >>> rejected. >> >> >>> >> http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?user=guest&pass=guest&id=2401. >> >> >> >> >> >> AFAICS that is not rejected, it is ignored. There's a difference. >> >> >> >> >> >> Also, your patch appears to be reversed. Or your spelling is >> terrible >> >> >> :-) >> >> >> >> >> >>> Here was a patch for Xcode awareness - rejected (is it fair to say >> >> >>> when its sites for years without acknowledgement?). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?user=guest&pass=guest&id=2402. >> >> >> >> >> >> Also not rejected. >> >> >> >> >> >> Now, I agree that having patches ignored isn't so great either, but >> >> >> the problem is: >> >> >> >> >> >> * RT doesn't actually work, the guy who allegedly maintains our >> >> >> infrastructure doesn't, and the team can't agree what to do about it >> >> >> (not that its tried very hard). >> >> >> >> >> >> * OpenSSL is mostly maintained by volunteers, who may not have felt >> >> >> particularly inspired by your patches, or may just have missed them. >> >> >> >> >> >> * When people are paid, they're generally paid to do specific >> things, >> >> >> not to trawl through RT (if they even could) looking for patches to >> >> >> adopt. I'm sure someone could pay for that if they want to, though. >> >> >> >> >> >> * CVS is a shit tool, too, making it hard to deal with patches - >> we've >> >> >> even agreed as a team to move off it, but see above about >> >> >> infrastructure :-) >> >> >> >> >> >>> I can't locate a bug report on the use of the uninitialized data. >> >> >>> Perhaps I had the discussion on the developer's mailing list (I >> know >> >> >>> I'm not imagining it, so my apologies). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I am also aware that patches existed for some time for CCM mode, >> GCM >> >> >>> mode, and SRP. In the case of GCM, IBM supplied the patches 5 or 10 >> >> >>> years earlier. None were acted upon. >> >> >> >> >> >> It always amuses me when bigcorp pays to have a patch made, but >> >> >> somehow manages to fail to understand that the guy applying the >> patch >> >> >> has to eat, too. Plus, ISTR the IP situation is none too clear on >> all >> >> >> of these. >> >> >> >> >> >> This reminds me of the first attempt to FIPSify OpenSSL, where there >> >> >> was zero budget for the developer - just money for test labs and the >> >> >> like ("what do you mean you want money to work on it? I thought it >> was >> >> >> free software!"). >> >> >> >> >> >>> The project does not appear to want outside help. If I am drawing >> the >> >> >>> wrong conclusion, please forgive me. >> >> >> >> >> >> I'll grant you that your very small patches could be considered >> help, >> >> >> and it is a little unfortunate they they were ignored, but like I >> say, >> >> >> RT is a shit tool, at least as implemented at OpenSSL, as is CVS (I >> >> >> notice you didn't supply the needed 4 patches, just a single one) >> and >> >> >> no-one's paying anyone to pick patches up from it, particularly. >> >> >> >> >> >> The rest of your "help" appears to be specifying flags you'd like to >> >> >> be used and expecting us to do the work for you. Which I actually >> >> >> might, I find that kind of thing therapeutic, but you get my point. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think the project would welcome help - but it needs to be useful >> help >> >> >> :-) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> cryptography mailing list >> >> >> cryptography@randombit.net >> >> >> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> cryptography mailing list >> >> cryptography@randombit.net >> >> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> cryptography mailing list >> cryptography@randombit.net >> http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography >> >
_______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list cryptography@randombit.net http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
