MITM attacks against portsnap and freebsd-update

David Noel david.i.noel at
Sat May 24 03:35:13 UTC 2014

On 5/20/14, Alnis Morics <alnis.morics at> wrote:
> On 05/20/2014 09:51, n j wrote:
>> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:03 AM, David Noel <david.i.noel at> wrote:
>>> On 5/19/14, Alnis Morics <alnis.morics at> wrote:
>>>> On 05/19/2014 23:28, David Noel wrote:
>>>>> I also think it would be an appropriate time to discuss retiring portsnap.
>>>> Subversion checkouts and updates take much more time than Porstnap.
>>> My experience has been that both portsnap and svn update typically
>>> take under a minute to complete.
>>> Regardless, don't most people run this in the background with portsnap
>>> cron?
>> I don't. And I don't regularly update the ports tree.
>> When you regularly update ports tree, the diffs svn update needs to pull
>> are relatively small. When you update, say, once a month, portsnap in my
>> experience gets the job done a lot quicker.
>> My $.02,
> Exactly. And "svn checkout" is incomparably slower than "portsnap fetch
> extract".

It wasn't a terribly popular suggestion on the security list either.
It's unfortunate that svn doesn't work for your use case -- it was a
painless transition for me. The proposal was based on a "least amount
of work required" model. Now we're actually going to have to find
someone who has the time free to patch portsnap!

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list