Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating

From: Peter Jeremy (PeterJeremy_at_optushome.com.au)
Date: 10/27/04

  • Next message: Colin Percival: "Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating"
    Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 05:48:36 +1000
    To: Colin Percival <colin.percival@wadham.ox.ac.uk>
    
    

    On Tue, 2004-Oct-26 20:58:54 +0100, Colin Percival wrote:
    >CVSup is slow, insecure, and a memory hog. However, until now
    >it's been the only option for keeping an up-to-date ports tree,
    ...
    >
    >To provide a secure, lightweight, and fast alternative to CVSup,
    >I've written portsnap.

    It sounds like you've re-invented CTM rather than a CVSup replacement.
    Would you care to provide a comparison of portsnap with CTM? Based on
    your description, the differences are:
    - portsnap uses HTTP, CTM uses either FTP or mail.
    - portsnap is always signed, CTM is only signed via mail.
    - CTM is part of the base system
    - ports-cur CTM deltas are currently generated every 8 hours

    -- 
    Peter Jeremy
    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-security@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-security
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-security-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
    

  • Next message: Colin Percival: "Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: please test: Secure ports tree updating
      ... > It sounds like you've re-invented CTM rather than a CVSup replacement. ... > Would you care to provide a comparison of portsnap with CTM? ... You're right that portsnap has more in common with CTM than it does with CVSup. ...
      (FreeBSD-Security)
    • Re: Standard way of updating 6.x ?
      ... I have found several websites with similar but differing ... rebuilding things at the lowest layer ... I am trying to use portsnap, ... faster than cvsup, but the handbook doesn't seem to have portsnap integrated ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: How often cvsup the ports?
      ... >>using portsnap, which is much more efficient than ... >>in a week than you would with cvsup in one run. ... > and emails me a list of installed packages which are ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: Gotta start somewhere ... how many of us are really out there?
      ... are using CVSup rather than portsnap for updating their ports trees. ... Even when I upgrade to 6 I think it unlikely I'll be switching to portsnap for 2 main reasons: ... If you want to count by port tree download, ignoring cvsup, would, I think be a mistake. ... Counting portsnap and cvsup accesses is non-intrusive - i.e. nothing sent from local host - will count systems from any version of FreeBSD, but will never count everything because sites with multiple hosts may easily have local propagation mechanisms. ...
      (freebsd-questions)
    • Re: [HOW-TO] cvsup for ports -- Re: compact portsnap db
      ... I don't like portsnap -- granted I've never typed the portsnap ... nearest cvsup mirror is 5 miles away is install fastest_cvsup to find ... Note if your not going to use the local cvs repository method I use ...
      (freebsd-questions)