Inferencium/website
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Activity

Update filenames to new file naming system.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
inference 2022-12-20 02:19:38 +00:00
parent bee6a0ee8a
commit 5611483a51
Signed by: inference
SSH Key Fingerprint: SHA256:9Pl0nZ2UJacgm+IeEtLSZ4FOESgP1eKCtRflfPfdX9M
1 changed files with 0 additions and 114 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

114
blog/systemd-insecurity.html
View File

@ -1,114 +0,0 @@
<!DOCTYPE html>
<!-- Inferencium - Website - Blog - #1 -->
<!-- Copyright 2022 Inference -->
<!-- License: BSD 3-Clause Clear (with personal content exception) -->
<!-- 0.2.2.4 -->
<html>
<head>
<title>Inferencium - Blog - systemd Insecurity</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="../inf.css">
</head>
<!-- Navigation bar. -->
<div class="sidebar">
<img src="../img/logo-inferencium-no_text.png"
width="110px" height="110px">
<a class="title">Inferencium</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<div><a href="../about.html">About</a></div>
<div><a href="../contact.html">Contact</a></div>
<div><a href="../blog.html">Blog</a></div>
<div><a href="../source.html">Source</a></div>
</div>
<body>
<h1>Blog - #1</h1>
<br>
<h2>systemd Insecurity</h2>
<br>
<p>Posted: 2022-01-29 (UTC+00:00)</p>
<p>Updated: 2022-11-14 (UTC+00:00)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>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.</p>
<br>
<br>
<h3>Issue #0 - Against CVE Assignment</h3>
<br>
<p>Poettering:<br>
"You don't assign CVEs to every single random bugfix we do, do you?"</p>
<br>
<p>My thoughts:<br>
Yes, if they're security-related.</p>
<br>
<p>Source:<br>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/5998#issuecomment-303782334"
>systemd GitHub Issue 5998</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>Issue #1 - CVEs Are Not Useful</h3>
<br>
<p>Poettering:<br>
"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..."</p>
<br>
<p>My thoughts:<br>
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.</p>
<br>
<p>Source:<br>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/6225#issuecomment-311739869"
>systemd GitHub Issue 6225</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>Issue #2 - Security is a Circus</h3>
<br>
<p>Poettering:<br>
"I am not sure I buy enough into the security circus to do that though for any minor issue..."</p>
<br>
<p>Source:<br>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/5144#issuecomment-276740654"
>systemd GitHub Issue 5144</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h3>Issue #3 - Blaming the User</h3>
<br>
<p>Poettering:<br>
"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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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."</p>
<br>
<p>My thoughts:<br>
systemd was the thing that allowed root access just because a username started with a number, then
Poettering blamed the user.</p>
<br>
<p>Source:<br>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-311900864"
>systemd GitHub Issue 6237</a></p>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>