From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: The git protocol and DoS Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:55:35 -0700 Message-ID: <4356B2C7.601@zytor.com> References: <4356A5C5.5080905@zytor.com> <7vmzl544f3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 19 22:57:10 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESKyb-0002kr-Rh for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:55:59 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751327AbVJSUzz (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:55:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751332AbVJSUzz (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:55:55 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:62092 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751327AbVJSUzy (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:55:54 -0400 Received: from [10.4.1.13] (yardgnome.orionmulti.com [209.128.68.65]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j9JKte3U007438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:55:40 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Junio C Hamano In-Reply-To: <7vmzl544f3.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.87, clamav-milter version 0.87 on localhost X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on terminus.zytor.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Junio C Hamano wrote: > "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > >>It would, however, require a protocol change; I would like to hear what >>people think about this at this stac=ge. > > Well, it is full two days since a majorly visible git protocol > enabled server has been announced, and you probably know what > kind of hits you are getting (and please let us know if you have > numbers, I am curious). About 350 hits so far, total. Utter peanuts. > If we do a protocol change, earlier the > better. You already said that the kernel.org git is > experimental. Does anybody run git daemons and rely on the > current protocol? > > I suspect it would not make *any* sense to have a backward > compatible server that optionally allows this cookie exchange -- > attackers can just say "I am an older client". OTOH, it > probably makes sense to have an option on the client side to > skip the cookie exchange stage. I do not think autodetecting > new/old server on the client side in connect.c is possible. > You mean an option on the *server* to skip the cookie exchange? If so, how would you expect the client to handle it? -hpa