Re: ACLs for GIT
- From
Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com>
- Date
- May 17, 2011, 15:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <BANLkTik6dP9su_K5WxUYkcGUL76J5ObvMg@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <BANLkTi=W2CtA2YaV_spru1E9pTWgoge3Kw@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 05:08, Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. Or, he has a SHA-1 he suspects is a tree or blob and lists that > in a tree he pushes to a branch he can write to. Now he can fetch that > branch back, and obtain that object whose SHA-1 he has but whose > contents he does not have.
Good point. Not too hard too I guess, unlike this one:
> There is another attack that is incredibly improbable, but that JGit
[snipped lots of complicated stuff]
> assume this theoretical attack is too improbable to succeed. (And it > is given what we know about SHA-1 today.)
IMO most of the theoretical attacks are just that. They advance the state of the art but I've not heard of any of them actually being used in a real life scenario. The sad fact is there are much weaker links to be found if you look around and you don't need all this.
>> Having two repos is still the best plan ;-) > > Yes, but tell that to Gerrit Code Review users. They really use the > branch ACL features. :-)
Interesting. I do a fair amount of git consulting and training (inhouse) and this has only come up once so far. I haven't seen it as being that common at all.