Re: Bare repositories in the working tree are a security risk

> Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:
>
> > Is the proposal to only detect bare repositories that are called `.git`?
> > I think that's what you're suggesting, though can't we just as easily
> > embed a bare repository named ".git" in a clone as long as its not in
> > the root directory?
>
> I do not think "you can use your bare repository as before ONLY if
> the directory is named .git; otherwise you must use GIT_DIR to point
> at it" would fly; the Glen's exception may help many uses of ".git
> subdirectory of a non-bare repository as if it were a bare" you can
> find in tests, but does not help real-world use cases where there
> may be bunch of bare repositories named "$project.git" at all.

> But I have to point out that your attack above would not work, as we
> do not allow ".git" directory in the index to begin with.  IOW, you
> as an attacker may be able to prepare such a tree with nonstandard
> tools, but the victim won't be able to check it out (and
> fsck-during-transfer would probably block the cloning).