From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: milki Subject: Re: optimising a push by fetching objects from nearby repos Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 10:32:26 -0700 Message-ID: <20140510173226.GA27483@hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu> References: <536E2C19.3000202@gmail.com> <20140510172338.GB45511@vauxhall.crustytoothpaste.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii To: Sitaram Chamarty , "git@vger.kernel.org" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat May 10 19:41:06 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WjBGi-0002QD-Ab for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 10 May 2014 19:41:04 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752707AbaEJRkg (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 May 2014 13:40:36 -0400 Received: from hal.ResComp.Berkeley.EDU ([169.229.70.150]:55697 "EHLO hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750964AbaEJRkf (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 May 2014 13:40:35 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 488 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sat, 10 May 2014 13:40:35 EDT Received: by hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu (Postfix, from userid 1070) id EFADF4F8; Sat, 10 May 2014 10:32:26 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140510172338.GB45511@vauxhall.crustytoothpaste.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On 17:23 Sat 10 May , brian m. carlson wrote: > I don't believe this is possible. There has been some discussion on > related matters at least fairly recently, though. > > Part of the reason nobody has implemented this is because it exposes > additional security concerns. If I create a commit that references an > object I don't own, but is in someone else's repository, this feature > could allow me to gain access to objects which I shouldn't have access > to unless the authentication and permissions layer is very, very > careful. This would make many very simple HTTPS and SSH setups much > more complex. Alternates don't have this problem because they're done > server-side. If this were implemented service side and specified with, say, a config option, would this security concern go away? -- milki