On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 01:40:28PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: [...] > > I agree, but writing secure (not perfectly secure) software may be > > nearly possible. > > I don't like to start flame war, but must mention djbdns and qmail. > > Yes, however they have less functionality than the alternatives that most > people want to use. Someone could say that for Linux comparing it with WinXX.
> Also I don't expect DJB to write replacements for dhcpd, dhclient, ftpd, > cron, Maybe someone else should do that, I hope at least. [...] > > That couldn't be solved by SE Linux (or similar code) but just > > mitigated a little. > > No, it means that a badly written daemon running as UID 0 can not trash your > system. So a sound server that has a bug can at worst play sounds and record > sounds in a malicious manner, and refuse to do what it is supposed to do. > Much better than allowing it to write to /etc/shadow! If attacker can poison DNS cache or fake DHCP server to do something nasty then the problem with SE Linux is just mitigated, not solved. > > I'm not against SE Linux, RSBAC GRSec, LIDS etc. I'm using some them > > on servers and playing with all of them. I just like to say that putting > > limits in the (our loved (Debian)/Linux) is not good thing, IMO. > > Why is it a limit? We are not talking about making any of these > mandatory for Debian users. We want to give them a choice of all of > the above. I'm not against choice, I just don't like idea that that stack protection and similar code could become "mainstream" one day. P.S. I appreciate you contribution to Linux (and Debian) security a lot, and I play with *your* SE Linux host when I have time.
