On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 18:11 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Ah, I see. My immediate reaction is that you can do worse things in
the reverse direction compared to this, but your scenario does sound
bad already.
Are you saying that clients connecting to untrusted servers already
face worse risks that people should know about, so there is no point in
documenting this one? I guess I don't know about the other risks aside
from accepting a corrupt object, which should be preventable by
enabling fetch.fsckObjects. It seems we need either a statement that
connecting to untrusted servers is officially unsupported or a
description of the specific risks.
Matt