From a3c41df6fa003fae40069a0b462466c334d3bf3a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: inference Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 17:29:51 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Update back-end code to new 100-120 column coding style. --- blog/systemd-insecurity.html | 46 ++++++++++++++++-------------------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) diff --git a/blog/systemd-insecurity.html b/blog/systemd-insecurity.html index 29adb74..a67ca37 100644 --- a/blog/systemd-insecurity.html +++ b/blog/systemd-insecurity.html @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ - + @@ -38,8 +38,8 @@

-

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.

+

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

@@ -59,16 +59,15 @@ Yes, if they're security-related.

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..."

+"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.

+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:

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..."

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


Source:

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.
+"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.
+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."

+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.

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


Source: