[OpenAFS] any experiences with OpenAFS client on the upcoming MacOS 10.10 (yosemite) release?

Stephen Joyce stephen@email.unc.edu
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:23:41 -0400 (EDT)


I'd like to learn more about this. However since you sell a proprietary 
fork of OpenAFS, it's difficult to discount your possible incentive to 
spread FUD regarding OpenAFS.

Therefore can you provide URIs with specific information to educate me (and 
possibly others) regarding these contractual obligations related to binary 

Thanks in advance!


On Tue, 21 Oct 2014, Jeffrey Altman wrote:

> The use Microsoft cross-signed certificates and Apple signing
> certificates come with contractual obligations specifying the
> circumstances under which signatures may be used.  A signature is not
> simply a method of proving that code has not been altered.  A signature
> is an indication to a customer that all of the terms of use which might
> include design requirements, QA requirements, certification
> requirements, licensing requirements, etc. are satisfied by the signed
> binary.
> Using a Microsoft or Apple signing certificate is not the same as
> signing an object with your own self-generated cert.  The certificates
> are trusted by the kernel and do not require subsequent online validation.
> Jeffrey Altman
> On 10/21/2014 1:37 AM, Mattias Pantzare wrote:
>> Why would signing of binaries imply anything more that just generate the
>> binaries without signing? The only thing that signing anything adds it a
>> way to prove that nothing has been altered.
>> You are just as open for lawsuits without signing, the only difference
>> is that you can trace the right source more easily with the signing.
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:16 AM, Jeffrey Altman
>> <jaltman@secure-endpoints.com <mailto:jaltman@secure-endpoints.com>> wrote:
>>     On 10/20/2014 3:40 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>    >
>>    > Some individual or organization will need to step forward to do that
>>    > signing; I do not believe that there is an "OpenAFS" organization
>>    > currently able or prepared to do so.  (Perhaps the Foundation could, but I
>>    > am not sure.)
>>     The correct entity to do so for OSX and Microsoft Windows and any other
>>     platform for which OpenAFS.org will distribute signed binaries is the
>>     OpenAFS Foundation.  Signing binaries implies an acceptance of liability
>>     if those binaries were to cause harm.  The OpenAFS Foundation should not
>>     sign binaries until it has appropriate insurance coverage in place to
>>     protect the release team and the developers that
>>     contribute to the release.
>>     Your File System Inc. currently signs the Windows installers because
>>     those packages are predominantly a product of YFSI developers and it has
>>     the appropriate General and Errors and Omissions insurance policies in
>>     place to cover any lawsuits that might be initiated.
>>     Jeffrey Altman