From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] send-email: die if CA path doesn't exist Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:18:48 -0500 Message-ID: <20151120111848.GC11198@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <27f354a4edb166e42006b0c1f778827a3dfd58ac.1447798206.git.john@keeping.me.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: John Keeping X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 20 12:19:06 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Zzjib-0000nK-0g for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:19:05 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759821AbbKTLSw (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:18:52 -0500 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:60058 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753161AbbKTLSv (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:18:51 -0500 Received: (qmail 17947 invoked by uid 102); 20 Nov 2015 11:18:51 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 05:18:51 -0600 Received: (qmail 26435 invoked by uid 107); 20 Nov 2015 11:19:23 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:19:23 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 20 Nov 2015 06:18:48 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27f354a4edb166e42006b0c1f778827a3dfd58ac.1447798206.git.john@keeping.me.uk> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:12:07PM +0000, John Keeping wrote: > If the CA path isn't found it's most likely to indicate a > misconfiguration, in which case accepting any certificate is unlikely to > be the correct thing to do. Yeah, this seems like a crazy default for security-sensitive code. I suspect some people will see breakage from applying this (because their systems are broken and they did not know it), but that is a good thing. For people who know their systems are broken and want to proceed anyway, what is the appropriate work-around? Obviously it involves disabling peer verification, but would we want to include instructions for doing so (either in the error message, or perhaps mentioning it in the commit message)? -Peff