From 3b3230d6cc2f1ba7285e25510f709ff41fbb5a08 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: inference Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2022 02:19:21 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update filenames to new file naming system. --- blog/systemd_insecurity.html | 114 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 114 insertions(+) create mode 100644 blog/systemd_insecurity.html diff --git a/blog/systemd_insecurity.html b/blog/systemd_insecurity.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..a67ca37 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/systemd_insecurity.html @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Inferencium - Blog - systemd Insecurity + + + + +
+ + Inferencium
+
+
+
About
+
Contact
+
Blog
+
Source
+
+ + +

Blog - #1

+
+

systemd Insecurity

+
+

Posted: 2022-01-29 (UTC+00:00)

+

Updated: 2022-11-14 (UTC+00:00)

+
+
+ +

Anyone who cares about security may want to switch from systemd as soon as possible; its lead +developer doesn't care about your security at all.

+
+
+

Issue #0 - Against CVE Assignment

+
+

Poettering:
+"You don't assign CVEs to every single random bugfix we do, do you?"

+
+

My thoughts:
+Yes, if they're security-related.

+
+

Source:
+systemd GitHub Issue 5998

+
+
+
+

Issue #1 - CVEs Are Not Useful

+
+

Poettering:
+"Humpf, I am not convinced this is the right way to announce this. We never did that, and half the +CVEs aren't useful anyway, hence I am not sure we should start with that now, because it is either +inherently incomplete or blesses the nonsensical part of the CVE circus which we really shouldn't +bless..."

+
+

My thoughts:
+CVEs are supposed to be for security, and a log of when they were found and their severity, so yes, +it *is* the correct way to announce it. It seems as if over 95 security-concious people think the +same.

+
+

Source:
+systemd GitHub Issue 6225

+
+
+
+

Issue #2 - Security is a Circus

+
+

Poettering:
+"I am not sure I buy enough into the security circus to do that though for any minor issue..."

+
+

Source:
+systemd GitHub Issue 5144

+
+
+
+

Issue #3 - Blaming the User

+
+

Poettering:
+"Yes, as you found out "0day" is not a valid username. I wonder which tool permitted you to create +it in the first place. Note that not permitting numeric first characters is done on purpose: to +avoid ambiguities between numeric UID and textual user names.
+
+systemd will validate all configuration data you drop at it, making it hard to generate invalid +configuration. Hence, yes, it's a feature that we don't permit invalid user names, and I'd consider +it a limitation of xinetd that it doesn't refuse an invalid username.
+
+So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here. I understand this is annoying, but +still: the username is clearly not valid."

+
+

My thoughts:
+systemd was the thing that allowed root access just because a username started with a number, then +Poettering blamed the user.

+
+

Source:
+systemd GitHub Issue 6237

+
+
+ + +