Inferencium/website
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Activity

Add headings for each issue. Change source link targets to Git issue comments rather than only the Git issues.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
inference 2022-11-14 11:34:07 +00:00
parent 845e6ebab4
commit 64452b860e
1 changed files with 20 additions and 7 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

27
blog/systemd-insecurity.html
View File

@ -19,23 +19,29 @@
<h2>systemd Insecurity</h2>
<br>
<p>Posted: 2022-01-29 (UTC+00:00)</p>
<p>Updated: 2022-10-29 (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>
Yes, if they're security-related.</p>
<br>
<p>Source:<br>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/5998">https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/5998</a></p>
<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
@ -49,19 +55,25 @@ 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">https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/6225</a></p>
<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">https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/5144</a></p>
<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
@ -73,7 +85,7 @@ 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<
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>
@ -81,7 +93,8 @@ 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">https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237</a></p>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-311900864"
>systemd GitHub Issue 6237</a></p>
<br>
<br>
</body>