From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/83953 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Vincent Bernat Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Builtin GnuTLS support and certificate verification Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 09:39:23 +0100 Message-ID: <87y53v7n44.fsf@guybrush.luffy.cx> References: <87iowbt5dq.fsf@guybrush.luffy.cx> <878ux782na.fsf@dex.adm.naquadah.org> <874n7uu2gg.fsf@guybrush.luffy.cx> <87txftsnub.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87li13q3dy.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87a9hjaj2d.fsf@guybrush.luffy.cx> <87r4anhrh3.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <871u2g1ofu.fsf@dex.adm.naquadah.org> <87vbz0vun4.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1386492022 24413 80.91.229.3 (8 Dec 2013 08:40:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 08:40:22 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M32208@lists.math.uh.edu Sun Dec 08 09:40:28 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1VpZuc-0007E1-Rj for ding-account@gmane.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 09:40:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1VpZtn-0001TY-L2; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 02:39:35 -0600 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1VpZtj-0001TM-Iz for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 02:39:31 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VpZti-0002pP-1e for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 02:39:31 -0600 Original-Received: from bart.luffy.cx ([78.47.78.131]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VpZtf-0007E9-SO for ding@gnus.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 09:39:27 +0100 Original-Received: from bart.luffy.cx (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by bart.luffy.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D6E5141F7 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 09:39:27 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple; d=luffy.cx; h=from:to:subject :references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=postfix; bh=H23xhu8jv GjJccv8GqucxCiGYH8=; b=TYaOVunLEQg7JIvaGmDcbf2yqANn3ZzoeXF+nu7mw 4aZXxooR+bnZ/Wlt4JizYhlKsfX04xpB6itMjmyB601yYN0PloxJHqaK4tdLjV2E RJB9KxWJfypklnwj/coP4o1TjL3FYVRggUbjKldVAtlXx9snmBHQ+YTVlbgVhAo0 /k= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=simple; d=luffy.cx; h=from:to:subject :references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=postfix; b=t1x /Z0HA70fBClZVtkwcNeRmUF91SzPMd68Ybod6OmV/ST/mpWPP9DqHrglpVPcqtWS Qh1tVMmXk4vCtQl5B43H9bvRuglHX36Dg72VtcL/Ovnz4J07nL9ON6SRrITie8HT 0ZD0+RDV2UxRUV5eHEFiYhY0gVeSTTj84Q5OD8Vg= Original-Received: from guybrush.luffy.cx (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e34:ec6d:710:8ea9:82ff:fe6d:94c8]) by bart.luffy.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9C6214140 for ; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 09:39:26 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: by guybrush.luffy.cx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C36CC190; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 09:39:23 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <87vbz0vun4.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> (Ted Zlatanov's message of "Sat, 07 Dec 2013 23:22:55 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:83953 Archived-At: =E2=9D=A6 8 d=C3=A9cembre 2013 05:22 CET, Ted Zlatanov = =C2=A0: >>> Verification options could be: >>>=20 >>> - `expired-certificate` >>> - `revoked-certificate` >>> - `untrusted-certificate` >>> - `hostname-mismatch` > > I'm not sure this granularity is necessary. I just have :trustfiles and > :hostname as options right now. Anyone else with an opinion? I thought you wanted something granular, hence the proposition. I don't know of any other software proposing granular verification. So, no problem with dropping this. > My concern is that suddenly connections will start failing for our users > and bug reports will flow, and I don't have time to explain to everyone > why their self-signed certificates need exceptions. This can be really, > really annoying. But logging in *Messages* is not very useful either, > users don't read it. So what's the right thing? How about a default > behavior of flashing a warning, then sit-for 3 seconds? A hard error > can be optional but not the default. For a first release, just default to the previous behaviour. However, some day, it would be nice to be "secure by default". > I'm also not sure I like the look and feel of the `gnutls-verify-error' > defcustom. It's kind of awkward. I am don't know defcustom enough to know if this would give something like this: '((".*\\.internal" :hostname) (".*" :trustfiles :hostname)) If yes, this seems fine for me. Just add the possible values for tags in the document string. > I'd like to get this done before the Emacs code freeze next week or so. > Please give me your opinions and test the code. I'll try to test later this day. --=20 panic("aha1740.c"); /* Goodbye */ 2.2.16 /usr/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aha1740.c