ANNOUNCE: Review requests

Enrico Scholz enrico.scholz at
Sat Mar 19 03:41:34 UTC 2005

mattdm at (Matthew Miller) writes:

>> 2. use different logindata. This will be much data which nobody can
>>    recall after some time. So, you have to use keymanagers or go through
>>    a remember-password procedure on every login. I do not trust complex
>>    systems like webbrowsers and think that this should be used for less
>>    sensitive passwords only.
> [...]
>> So I think, that GPG based authentication is much more secure than the
>> HTTP authentication.
> You chose to snip a paragraph from my earlier message which I think is quite
> relevant here, so I'm gonna repeat it:
>   I'm not opposed to some sort of GPG signature-based process, but it needs
>   to be integrated enough with the tools people will be using (webbrowsers,
>   most likely) to make it not a burden.
> We need a system that is workable for developers to use. It needs to be
> secure, but it also needs to *aid* the process, not interfere with it.

My current approach is to use usual HTTP-auth for less sensitive actions
(displaying tickets) but require GPG signing of certain actions (approving
tickets, requesting inclusion of projects, ...).

A snapshot of the GPG signing part is displayed at
(pure HTML snapshot without any functionality). The previous page is
displayed in

These snapshots are from the HTML frontend, the system itself is designed
as an XML-RPC server where more powerful, native clients can be written

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list