We’re no longer using our old ftp, rsync, and git links for distributing OpenSSL. These were great in their day, but it’s time to move on to something better and safer. ftp://ftp.openssl.org and rsync://rsync.openssl.org are not available anymore. As of June 1, 2024, we’re also going to shut down https://ftp.openssl.org and git://git.openssl.org/openssl.git mirrors.

GitHub is becoming the main distributor of the OpenSSL releases.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] GammaGames 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Even if they don’t I’m sure many others will

[–] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Well, yes. But let's say the OpenSSL developers copy new changes of source code to GitHub, and something goes wrong after the copying (Think of a malicious attacker breaking in and changes some code), then all the people copying from that one download link will be in the same boat as well.

[–] GammaGames 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Any official mirrors would sync the changes anyway, it’s automatic

Edit: Oh, I think I misunderstood your point. I agree that hosting the repos themselves would make it harder for randoms to maliciously introduce code

[–] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I was trying to say that if the OpenSSL developers upload new source code to only GitHub and something goes wrong, even for example simply a mistake or failure by GitHub, then other users wanting to download will not have to wait for the OpenSSL developers to repair that problem when OpenSSL project would for example have mirrors on Codeberg or sourcehut or their own git server, the latter which they intend to deprecate.

[–] GammaGames 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If they were to set up an official mirror it would be automatic, so I don’t think there’s any real way to avoid that problem with their current plan. But you’re right! Sorry for the confusion

[–] lemmyreader@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

n p

[–] refalo@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What is your definition of harder? I think bugs/breaches are even more likely on personal forges than github. Not that one should rely on github anyways...

[–] GammaGames 2 points 6 months ago

I agree

[–] refalo@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I think "something goes wrong" is even MORE likely to happen on randomdude.com's insecure git forge

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Microsoft GitHub is riddled with bugs, is down at least once a month, & throttles non-Western IPs.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] ReversalHatchery 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Codeberg and SourceHut are not really randomdude.com's insecure git forge. Both are doing development on their own services, and those services are not bad, like at all