User:Mstone/Rainflow: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
To date, we have seen several attempts to discover appropriate details: |
To date, we have seen several attempts to discover appropriate details: |
||
: [http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/security/2008-October/000496.html] |
: [http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/security/2008-October/000496.html questions on activity signing and update thread] |
||
: [[User:Mstone/Commentaries/Bundles_1]] |
: [[User:Mstone/Commentaries/Bundles_1]] |
||
: [http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-March/011553.html runtime build customization thread] and <trac>6432</trac> |
: [http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-March/011553.html runtime build customization thread] and <trac>6432</trac> |
||
: http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/security/2007-December/000341.html |
: [http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/security/2007-December/000341.html user-created activities and updates thread] |
||
: [http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-March/012131.html horizontal distribution thread] |
: [http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/2008-March/012131.html horizontal distribution thread] |
||
Revision as of 19:58, 29 May 2009
Carrying on the tradition of naming software via puns, I'll lay down some thoughts here about software for, among other things, answering the question:
- Should we run program X deisolated?
Background
<trac>5657</trac> asked for a way to automatically update Terminal that is not subject to spoofing.
One natural approach this is activity signing. However, as experience with X.509 has shown, the devil is truly in the details.
To date, we have seen several attempts to discover appropriate details:
- questions on activity signing and update thread
- User:Mstone/Commentaries/Bundles_1
- runtime build customization thread and <trac>6432</trac>
- user-created activities and updates thread
- horizontal distribution thread
Consequently, here's an attempt at details.