Centralized vs. Distributed version control security_问答_开发者

As my company begins to further explore moving from centralized version control tools (CVS, SVN, Perforce and a host of others) to offering teams distributed version control tools (mercurial in our case) I've run into a problem:

The Problem

A manager has raised the concern that distributed version control may not be as secure as our CVCS options because the repo history is stored locally on the developer's machine.

It's been difficult to nail down his exact security concern but I've gathered that it centers on the fact that a malicious employee could steal not only the latest intellectual properly but our whole history of changes just by copying a single folder.

The Question(s)

Do distributed version control system really introduce new security concerns for projects?
Is it easier to maliciously steal code?
Does the complete history represent an additional threat that the latest version of the code does not?

My Thoughts

My take is that this may be a mistaken thought that the centralized model is more secure because the history seems to be safer as it is off on its own box. Given that users with even read access to a centralized repo could selectively extract snapshots of the project at any key revision I'm not sure the DVCS model makes it all that easier. Also, most CVCS tools allow you to extract the whole repo's history with a single command so that you can import them into other tools.

I think the other issue is just how important the history is compared to the latest version. Granted someone could have checked in a top secret file, then deleted it and the history would pretty quickly be significant. But even in that scenario a CVCS user could checkout that top secret version with a single command.

I'm sure I could be missing something or downplaying 开发者_StackOverflow中文版risks as I'm eager to see DVCS become a fully supported tool option. Please contribute any ideas you have on security concerns.

If you have read access to a CVCS, you have enough permissions to convert the repo to a DVCS, which people do all the time. No software tool is going to protect you from a disgruntled employee stealing your code, but a DVCS has many more options for dealing with untrusted contributors, such as a gatekeeper workflow. Hence its widespread use in open source projects.

You are right in that distributed version control does not really introduce any new security concerns since the developer has already access to the code in both cases. I can only think that since it is easier to work offline and offsite with GIT, developers might become more tempted to do it than in centralized. I would push to force encryption on all corporate laptops with code
not really easier, just the same. If you enable logs, then you will have the same information when the code is accessed.
I personally do not think so. It might represent the thought process leading to certain decisions but not necessarily more.

It comes down to knowledge on how to implement security measures in both cases. If you have more experience in one system vs another then you are more likely to implement more to prevent such loss but at the end of the day, you are trusting your developers with code the minute you allow them access to it. No way around that.

DVCS provides various protections against unauthorized writing. This is why it is popular with opensource teams. It has several frustrating limitations for controlling reading. Opensource teams do not care about this.

The first problem is that most DVCS encourage many copies of the full source. The typical granularity is the full repo. This can include many unneeded branches and even entire other projects, besides the concern of history (along with searchable commit comments that can make the code even more useful to the attacker). CVCS encourages developers to copy as little as possible to their desktop, since the less they copy, the faster it works. The less you put on mobile devices, the easier it is to secure.

When DVCS is implemented with many devices acting as servers, it is much more difficult to implement effective network security. Attacking a local CVCS workspace requires the attacker to gain access to the filesystem. Attacking a DVCS node generally requires attacking the DVCS itself on any device hosting the information (and remember: the folks who maintain most DVCS's are opensource guys; they don't care nearly as much about read controls). The more devices that host repositories, the more likely that users will set up anonymous read access (which again, DVCS encourages because of its opensource roots). This greatly simplifies the job of an attacker who is doing random sweeps.

CVCS that are based on URLs (like subversion) open the opportunity for quite fine-grain access control, such as per-branch access. DVCS tends to fight this kind of access control.

I know developers like DVCS, but there's no way it can be secured as effectively as CVCS. Most environments do a terrible job of securing their CVCS, and if that's the case then it doesn't matter which you use. But if you take access control seriously, you can have much greater control with CVCS as part of a broader least-privilege infrastructure.

Many may argue that there's no reason to protect source code. That's fine and people can argue about it. But if you are going to protect your source code, the best implementation is to not copy the source to random laptops (which are very hard to secure well), and rather have developers mount it from a central server. CVCS works well this way. DVCS makes no sense if you are going to keep it on a single server this way. If you are going to copy files to mobile devices, make sure you copy as little as possible. That's the opposite of DVCS.

There are a bunch of "security" issues; whether they are an issue depends on your setup:

There's more data floating around, which means the notional "attack surface" might be bigger (it depends on how you count).
- But how much data does the "typical" developer check out? You might want to use a sparse checkout in svn, but lazy people and some GUI tools don't support that, so they'll have all your code checked out anyway. Git users might be more likely to use multiple repos. This depends on you.
Authentication/access control might be better (and it might be worse!). This is largely a function of the VCS, not whether it is "D" or "C". svn:// is plaintext.
Is deleting files a priority, and how easy is this to do? An accidental commit of a confidential file is more painful to do in git if it happened in the distant past (but people might be more likely to notice).
Are you really going to notice a malicious user pulling the entire history instead of merely doing a checkout? It depends on how big your repository is and what your branches are like. It's easy for a full SVN checkout to take up more space than the repository itself due to branches.
Change history is generally not something you want to give away for free (even to people with a source code license), but how valuable is it? Maybe you have top-secret design methodologies or confidential information in your commit messages, but this seems unlikely.

And finally, security economics:

How much is the extra security worth?
How much is increased productivity worth?
How much is caring about the concerns about your developers worth?

(IIRC it turns out that users should ignore security advice, because the expected cost is more than the expected benefit — this is especially true for things like certificates that expired yesterday. How much does it cost you to check the address bar every time you type in password? How often do you catch a phishing attempt? What is the cost to you per thwarted phishing attempt? What is the cost per successful phish?)