|
|
|
|
|
by Dormeno
2711 days ago
|
|
One important factor this article left out is upgrades. If the given HTTPS implementation is broken because of what is now insecure protocols, insecure ciphers etc. Older systems can't update from the mirror if it's updated to use a 'secure' HTTPS configuration while it only supports the 'vulnerable' solution. If HTTPS is left insecure, then it is not much different from using HTTP. APT's methodology avoids this and as the current signing and protection mechanisms are file based, the worst case scenario is introducing a new file with a new cryptographic signature along side the old schema, to support still updating a system running old security mechanism. In comparison, trying to run multiple HTTPS servers with different configurations for specific versions of the system being updated would be a significant engineering effort, especially for mirrors. |
|
This is what many mirrors already do:
http://mirrors.lug.mtu.edu/debian/
https://mirrors.lug.mtu.edu/debian/