Re: svn + SSL?

[David Brodbeck]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf 
wrote:

> Or perhaps stunnel, which has its pros and cons (e.g., an SSL
> vulnerability won't compromise the svn process).
>

I thought about suggesting that, too, but I'm not sure it's workable.
While it'd be easy to set up on the server side, it would be very clumsy on
the client side, since the client isn't going to understand svn-over-TLS
without its own stunnel instance.

-- 
D. Brodbeck
System Administrator, Linguistics
University of Washington
GPG key fingerprint: 0DB7 4B50 8910 DBC5 B510 79C4 3970 2BC3 2078 D875

Re: svn + SSL?

[Nico Kadel-Garcia]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:21 PM, David Brodbeck  wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf 
> wrote:
>>
>> Or perhaps stunnel, which has its pros and cons (e.g., an SSL
>> vulnerability won't compromise the svn process).
>
>
> I thought about suggesting that, too, but I'm not sure it's workable.  While
> it'd be easy to set up on the server side, it would be very clumsy on the
> client side, since the client isn't going to understand svn-over-TLS without
> its own stunnel instance.

Sure it can. This is similar to how svn+ssh works. For stunnel, you'd
set up a port tunnel from a port on your localhost.