Re: Versioning system
From: Kasper Dupont (wfbtxutyalwrmiandynpenajcf_at_skrammel.yaboo.dk)
Date: 06/05/04
- Next message: Juha Laiho: "Re: Versioning system"
- Previous message: Christopher Browne: "Re: Versioning system"
- In reply to: Christopher Browne: "Re: Versioning system"
- Next in thread: Friedrich Dominicus: "Re: Versioning system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 15:27:09 +0200
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> In the context of the O.P.'s notion of security, Bitkeeper would, much
> like _all_ other options, be ruled out due to its use of SSH for
> secure communications.
Actually I doubt you'd come up with anything much more
secure anyway. I wouldn't expect as much focus on the
security of a protocol used for just a single source
control system as with SSH which some people use for more
or less everything.
In many cases it is very convenient to just have the SSH
server runing which you can use for whatever you need to
do over the network, and still have only one server to
worry about.
As for alternatives that allow you to send user names and
passwords encrypted, only thing that comes to my mind is
https. Might be an option if you think that is more secure.
But then all the OpenSSL problems might actually affect
you. Also the key management with ssh and https are
different. So if one fits your needs and the other don't
that might be what you should base your choice upon.
-- Kasper Dupont -- der bruger for meget tid paa usenet. For sending spam use kasperd@kd.lir.dk and abuse@kd.lir.dk I'd rather be a hammer than a nail.
- Next message: Juha Laiho: "Re: Versioning system"
- Previous message: Christopher Browne: "Re: Versioning system"
- In reply to: Christopher Browne: "Re: Versioning system"
- Next in thread: Friedrich Dominicus: "Re: Versioning system"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|