From nobody Fri Jan 20 08:16:11 2023 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4NyslV4NB4z2srwp for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:16:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from soth.netfence.it (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mailserver.netfence.it", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4NyslT1mLpz4PxK for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:16:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=netfence.it header.s=202301 header.b=lRF3wjwv; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ml@netfence.it designates 78.134.96.152 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ml@netfence.it; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=netfence.it Received: from [10.1.2.18] (mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152]) (authenticated bits=0) by soth.netfence.it (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPSA id 30K8GB9d055547 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 09:16:11 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=netfence.it; s=202301; t=1674202573; bh=qR6O9D6OhnvJVChRxEll9X6Fdq3CDaCW0VO/JGYgw/A=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=lRF3wjwvQZmFtHYTgVY5I4ppykJlMRN9SyXqb+SsI9q2L2LdNTayWX8VpalXoNvvZ WHeA5k0ZRMhBawR5p4xzJyDjIlFMeGSa8w0egOd3ZRtSthX+am0txCEEvdMAp5yUGh tplEx27SWpWrfAkpo030RtS9cMK2X9Ji8AWqkcuk= X-Authentication-Warning: soth.netfence.it: Host mailserver.netfence.it [78.134.96.152] claimed to be [10.1.2.18] Message-ID: <5f9b073d-ff90-3c4d-805c-7034cd2299c6@netfence.it> Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 09:16:11 +0100 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.0 Subject: Re: Can security/ca_root_nss be retired? Content-Language: en-US To: ports@freebsd.org References: <551458a3-665f-9f55-8ef9-1dd23e1e3aee@bluerosetech.com> <56babb59-ab5b-7845-fbcb-f1cadddfd425@grosbein.net> From: Andrea Venturoli In-Reply-To: <56babb59-ab5b-7845-fbcb-f1cadddfd425@grosbein.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.95 / 15.00]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.95)[-0.952]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[netfence.it,none]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:78.134.96.152]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[netfence.it:s=202301]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ASN(0.00)[asn:35612, ipnet:78.134.0.0/17, country:IT]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[ports@freebsd.org]; RCVD_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[netfence.it:+]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[ports@freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4NyslT1mLpz4PxK X-Spamd-Bar: -- X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 1/19/23 18:04, Eugene Grosbein wrote: >> Given /usr/share/certs exists for all supported releases, is there any reason to keep the ca_root_nss port? Just my 2c... > Single port may be updates more frequently and easily than base system. I agree on this, but there's another problem. Base has single certs in /etc/ssl/certs, where I can add my own private CAs' ones. Port provides a single bundled file in /usr/local/etc/ssl/cert.pem. This (at least in some cases) overrides completely the ones in /etc/ssl/certs, so my own private CAs will not work anymore In the end, I have to delete /usr/local/etc/ssl/cert.pem every time the port creates it (and currently I have found no way to prevent it from doing this). So a port would be fine, possibly very appreciated, if it woulnd't disrupt base/local. bye av. Then there's www/p5-Mozilla-CA and possibly others...