Re: GnuTLS for W32

[Óscar Fuentes]

Juanma Barranquero <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 02:33, Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Security default settings must be appropriate for those who are at risk.
>
> That assumes that those at risk are many,

Do we implement security only when many users are at risk?

> or the cost of these defaults are small.  We can now discuss (without
> any real data, I think) just how many Windows users of Emacs are at
> risk, and how convenient or inconvenient is to assume distributing the
> GnuTLS binary vs. pointing the users to an alternative download place.

Including the GnuTLS binary with the official binary packages shouldn't
be too costly, if we consider how rare Emacs releases are. As for the
other option, GnuTLS support could be prominently advertised, not just
listed as another item on NEWS.

> And, just to put things in perspective, until now Emacs had no GnuTLS
> support and we haven't seen a flood of network-related security
> reports from Windows users.

Shrugh. Security-wise, this way of thinking is responsible for lots of
disasters.

I wouldn't detect if someone were eavesdropping my network
communications, nor would you.