Re: (no subject)

> A strong security mind would point out that would allow any evil
> process installed by a corrupted asdf-install package...

This is _exactly_ the not-quite-formed thought that was bothering me.

> Basically you want independence in the key-fetch and
> key-usage processes.

and this is exactly the articulation of the general principle. (As  
I'm sure folks on the list have guessed,) I don't have much of a  
security background but do appreciate the need for it. Being able to  
sum up ideas like this independence so succinctly is very helpful.  
(Maybe we could make T-shirts <smile>).

> Average Joe user wouldn't care of course, and I doubt that you do
> either.  Perhaps with a *warning*.  Since I'm tired of all the spam
> and clone armies, I think the current independent setup is fine.

I see your point. ... and now I even understand it better!

thanks,
--
Gary Warren King, metabang.com
Cell: (413) 559 8738
Fax: (206) 338-4052
gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM





-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
Still grepping through log files to find problems?  Stop.
Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >>  http://get.splunk.com/