Inferencium/website
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Activity

Update webpage "Blog - #1" from version "9.0.0" to "9.0.1"

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
inference 2024-03-18 03:56:05 +00:00
parent ad32ee8318
commit 6cb923a3b6
Signed by: inference
SSH Key Fingerprint: SHA256:FtEVfx1CmTKMy40VwZvF4k+3TC+QhCWy+EmPRg50Nnc
1 changed files with 85 additions and 89 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

48
blog/systemd_insecurity.xhtml
View File

@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
<!DOCTYPE html>
<!-- Inferencium - Website - Blog - #1 -->
<!-- Version: 9.0.0 -->
<!-- Version: 9.0.1 -->
<!-- Copyright 2022 Jake Winters -->
<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause -->
<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause WITH AdditionRef-Inferencium-Personal-exception -->
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
@ -47,8 +47,7 @@
developer doesn't care about your security at all.</p>
<section id="issue-0">
<h2><a href="#issue-0">Issue #0 - Against CVE Assignment</a></h2>
<blockquote>"You don't assign CVEs to every single random bugfix we do, do
you?"</blockquote>
<blockquote>"You don't assign CVEs to every single random bugfix we do, do you?"</blockquote>
<p>- Lennart Poettering, systemd lead developer</p>
<p><b>My thoughts:</b> Yes, if they're security-related.</p>
<p>Source:
@ -56,41 +55,38 @@
</section>
<section id="issue-1">
<h2><a href="#issue-1">Issue #1 - CVEs Are Not Useful</a></h2>
<blockquote>"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..."</blockquote>
<blockquote>"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..."</blockquote>
<p>- Lennart Poettering, systemd lead developer</p>
<p><b>My thoughts:</b> CVEs are supposed to be for security, and a log of when they
were found and their severity, so yes, it <em>is</em> the correct way to
announce it. It seems as if over 95 security-concious people think the same.</p>
<p><b>My thoughts:</b> CVEs are supposed to be for security, and a log of when they were found
and their severity, so yes, it <em>is</em> the correct way to announce it. It seems as if over
95 security-concious people think the same.</p>
<p>Source:
<a href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/6225#issuecomment-311739869">systemd GitHub Issue 6225</a></p>
</section>
<section id="issue-2">
<h2><a href="#issue-2">Issue #2 - Security is a Circus</a></h2>
<blockquote>"I am not sure I buy enough into the security circus to do that
though for any minor issue..."</blockquote>
<blockquote>"I am not sure I buy enough into the security circus to do that though for any minor
issue..."</blockquote>
<p>- Lennart Poettering, systemd lead developer</p>
<p>Source:
<a href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/5144#issuecomment-276740654">systemd GitHub Issue 5144</a></p>
</section>
<section id="issue-3">
<h2><a href="#issue-3">Issue #3 - Blaming the User</a></h2>
<blockquote><p>"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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>"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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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></blockquote>
<p>- Lennart Poettering, systemd lead developer</p>
<p><b>My thoughts:</b> systemd was the thing that allowed root access just because a
username started with a number, then Poettering blamed the user.</p>
<p><b>My thoughts:</b> systemd was the thing that allowed root access just because a username
started with a number, then Poettering blamed the user.</p>
<p>Source:
<a href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-311900864">systemd GitHub Issue 6237</a></p>
</section>