Vevy Kod <vevy...@laposte.net> wrote: > 1. We do not need a good reason to reduce our attack surface. The > likeliness of the scenarios we are preventing does not matter: those > scenarios will become likely as soon as they become the easiest to > exploit.
What is the attack surface? > 2. It prevents unknowingly escalating a supply-chain attack. If a > malware is somehow embedded in the compiler, it will be able to 1) > read secret keys used by developers to sign binary packages, and 2) > embed those secret keys in the compiler output (likely set for > distribution). If the compiler has malware, it will probably remove the unveil and pledge. You are bullshitting.
