lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectThe state of linux security
    Right, for a start, if I was a professor at university I'd much rather
    some "smart" students crashed 100 boxes a day for a year than one
    owned several servers. In any case, it seems absurd that anybody
    looking for security holes to either subvert or crash systems would be
    deterred by the lack of security commit messages. They already know
    what they are looking for. On the other hand, there has to be some
    metrics available for normal people to make an informed decision about
    the relative security of linux and the likely hood that smart people
    are able to cause a bit of mindless vandalism or get up to much worse.

    Your hand waving and obfuscation simply do not wash. The bugs being
    talked about are not just any bugs. They have their own commercial
    value because they can allow the complete subversion of your systems.
    This (for most people I'd guess) is far more dangerous than simply
    having their computers crash. Also, I'd bet that many security bugs
    aren't triggerable under any normal workload. If my machines have
    been running for 2 months why bother bringing them down in order to
    bugfix something that doesn't seem to affect them anyway?

    This business of passing the buck onto vendors is also absurd. If
    security is not built into your development mindset and models from
    the start you are being utterly naive and complacent. I commend the
    stable team for fixing and backporting what they can, but I need to
    know what I've been exposed to and for how long. From the looks of
    what the paxteam has been saying, it seems linux security is pretty
    bad and has been getting worse. This must be in no small part to you
    putting your head in the sand, sticking your fingers in your ears and
    going "lalalalala".

    Obfuscating the risk people are exposed to means you have no real
    accountability and thus no incentive to not put so many security bugs
    there in the first place. If other developers or users don't know how
    bad things are how can they make informed decisions about development
    processes or where they can afford to deploy linux?

    If it turns out that the current development model has produced too
    many security problems then the development model must change. I'd
    like to think that the integrity of most peoples systems is more
    important than some micro benchmark improvement because of some
    complex scheduler change. That's not to say the latter isn't
    important, just that more time and effort needs to be put into making
    sure that the changes don't affect users in potentially disasterous
    ways.

    One more thing I'd like to throw out there on the issue of
    accountability is this: How do I know that some developers have not
    been paid to specifically introduce some obscure security flaw? Given
    that such subversions happen frequently in every other field of human
    endeavour where potential profit is involved, this is not beyond the
    realms of possibility. The more linux is adopted the more likely this
    is to become a real issue. For that reason it is imperitive that
    these potentially severe flaws are dealt with openly and transparantly
    when discovered.

    If the attitudes of the people at the top of linux development don't
    change this is the end of the linux experiment for me and i'm sure
    many other people. The percieved benifits of transparancy, openness
    and cost will have been completely smashed for the vast majority of
    users. This is not something to be taken lightly.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-07-16 18:07    [W:0.024 / U:267.564 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site