Posted: 2022-01-29 (UTC+00:00)
Updated: 2023-10-31 (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.
"You don't assign CVEs to every single random bugfix we do, do - you?"
- Lennart Poettering, systemd lead developer
My thoughts: Yes, if they're security-related.
Source: - systemd GitHub Issue 5998
"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
"I am not sure I buy enough into the security circus to do that - though for any minor issue..."
Source: - systemd GitHub Issue 5144
"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."
"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
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.
"You don't assign CVEs to every single random bugfix we do, do you?"
Source: + systemd GitHub Issue 5998
"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
"I am not sure I buy enough into the security circus to do that though for any minor + issue..."
Source: + systemd GitHub Issue 5144
"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."
"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