Killing plaintext git:// in favor of https:// cloning

Jason A. Donenfeld Jason at
Tue Feb 23 06:08:24 CET 2016

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Eric Wong <normalperson at> wrote:
> I suggest keeping git:// running as automated mirrors may not be
> monitored very closely or easily updated.

That's a good point. I'd forgotten about automated mirrors. I'll keep
logs of the git:// pulls for a month or so and see if there are any
regular pullers and also if I can track down the source IP. Perhaps
it's a manageable pool of people to switch over.

> git already has plenty of integrity checking built-in and
> getting the proper hashes for the heads/tags over a
> trusted-enough medium is enough (or reading the fine code).

No, git's built-in integrity protection really is not sufficient if
the transport is compromised.

> And as others have said, HTTPS isn't impenetrable

I'd like some specific details on this repeated claim.

> the CA system is still a major problem.

True. But there doesn't appear to be a widely deployed alternative.

> Also, TLS libraries can introduce new bugs and vulnerabilities
> like Heartbleed.

This is true, but I already require a public TLS deployment, so it's
there regardless.

More information about the CGit mailing list