FW: FW: [db-wg] Proposal to deprecate CRYPT-PW authorisation in the RIPE Database

Hi,

	"> No "operational changes"?
	In the day-to-day operation ("sending in mails to change objects
to the 
	RIPE DB") going from CRYPT-PW to MD5-PW *will* *not* *change*
*anything*.

	The mail will still contain a "password: <something>" block,
just the
	way this password is hashed in the maintainer object is
different."

Then it is NOT improve security much. Using your allegory: Let's put
huge lock on our cardboard door? In security ALL parts are essential.
BEFORE I can use "the day-to-day" operation I should change CRYPT-PW to
MD5-PW. And PERSONALLY I don't need the enhanced in some way but weak in
the other "security".


	"> Let's look at the plan to get an image that it's not so
"problemless". 
	So where exactly *do* you see "problems"?"

It's simple: the big amount of people and resources involved.

	"In your mail you speak about "crypto" - which is NOT involved
here
	(except hashing the password) - this proposal is not forcing
anybody
	to go to PGP, just to a different password storing scheme."

It's not the only point I spoke about. Please reread once more.

	Please get a reality check on what is proposed, and what is
proposed as
	replacement.

It was my idea initially. I do not see much sense in the proposal,
because you can use "better security" without ANY CHANGES AT ALL.

	*Good* security is fixing problems *before* they happen.
	Like "lock your front door when you leave your house, even if
you
	have never been burglared yet".

If you speak about your home for $1000000 - it's true. And if we speak
about cabin for $10? How much sense is a lock for $1000 then?

Vladislav Potapov
Ru.iiat