Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Tobin C. Harding <me@tobin.cc> wrote:
Linus do you care what protocol? I'm patching Documentation and since the point is creating pull requests for you 'some people' don't matter.
I actually tend to prefer the regular git:// protocol and signed tags.
It's true that https should have the proper certificate and perhaps help with DNS spoofing, but I'm not convinced that git won't just accept self-signed random certs, and I basically don't think we should trust that.
git does not accept self-signed certs by default, at least in recent versions. Though you can do a trust-on-first-use type thing, by downloading the cert and telling git where to find it. So https does provide additional security vs git:// IMHO. There is some verification of the server and your data is encrypted on the wire. It's not like it would be trivial to MITM a git fetch to insert a malicious Makefile change, but it's also not *hard*.
In contrast, using ssh I would actually trust, but it's not convenient and involves people sending things that aren't necessarily publicly available.
So instead, I prefer just using git:// and not trying to fool people into thinking the protocol is secure - the security should come from the signed tag.
That's true, but only when you're pulling a signed tag, which for most people is not the common case. ...
That said, I actually would prefer even kernel.org repositories to just send pull requests with signed tags, despite the protocol itself being secure for that (and only that).
Which you mention here. cheers