|
|
|
|
|
by morganvachon
4291 days ago
|
|
> Author source repos have been hacked before, they'll be hacked again. Yes, and when that happens it can affect apt packages and manual installations equally. > I think what people are sensing, even if they can't put their finger on it, is that you're applying fairly arbitrary standards of what's good and bad here. I think what's going on is that I made the mistake of saying what I'm inclined to do for me, in a forum that often follows a hive mind approach. I'm not bashing apt, nor Debian, all I said was that I'm inclined to go back to doing things the hard way because it's net more secure for me. I realize that in larger numbers, a system like apt (or yum or pacman) is more secure for users en masse, even factoring in temporary lapses like this. But that was never my focus; I was simply indicating that this would be the final push to send me back to familiar territory on my desktop. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon and tried to claim that I said I wouldn't verify source in Slackware, just so they could "win" a discussion and get fake internet points. It's one of the few things about this community that feels immature to me, but then I remind myself that here I'm an old fart surrounded by kids in college or just coming out of it. It's a completely different mindset. > How are you sure your signature checking code wasn't compromised? I covered this in another comment, but years ago I wrote a bog-simple script to verify hashes. My code wasn't compromised because it's my code. |
|
Please don't change the story like this, then insult the people you're talking to by denigrating them ('hive mind', 'immature', 'fake win', 'bandwagon', 'college naifs'). The people responding to you are not just trying to 'win' 'fake internet points', they're trying to counter FUD being spread around package security.
You speak of people being immature, but your whole paragraph there is a sniffy, passive-aggressive swipe.