Clear Linux Moving Ahead With Blocking dmesg Access For Non-Root Users

[nanonyme]

Michael unapproved post replying to debianxfce

That gives me an idea: if their posts required manual approval, it might also make things calmer.

[Djhg2000]

You know I loved your stupid non sense posts, trying to tell everyone that everything you think is right and if they think differently at all then they are stupid dumb ass internet trolls. Those post were so much fun to read. That was because you were just giving out harmless opinions that if people would follow wouldn't cause any damage. But when you try stating your "facts" as you like to call everything you say, by telling people to disable their security in the name of security, you are giving out horrible wrong incorrect advise that is dangerous.

And funny how you finally respond to one of my posts that don't say anything about having Michael benchmark your "distro" Could it be that you don't have one? or that you are scared that it will do horrible in the benchmarks? That your 'setup' won't win every test? Or is it that you don't actually use the bullshit you spout? I think its the last one. I bet you are a gnome3 systemd redhat loving user. Why else won't you provide your "distro" for Michael to benchmark. I'm sure he would do it just because he knows that that benchmark would get killer views proving that you are wrong with your setup being the best.

Also never give out "security" advise again. some one might actually listen to you and that would be bad.

He does have a valid point though. Censorship is never the right answer. What he/she says might be stupid and objectively wrong, but the appropriate response is not to forcibly silence him/her.

Also I'm sick of hearing about how debianxfce should be banned or whatever. That's clearly not going to happen and it's neither the first nor last time someone is wrong on the internet. Deal with it.

[Bsdisbetter]

People like me use it. It's also relevant in that it pushes performance, which leads to other distros making the same optimizations.

Only if they want to be tied to an Intel chip....

[Bsdisbetter]

So according to Intel, dmesg poses a security risk. Look here, since May 29th. Hardware mitigation on new Intel CPU is a placebo. New security hole discovered.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.12701

Yes, but it doesn't affect AMD or ARM. Amazing!

[Bsdisbetter]

So according to Intel, dmesg poses a security risk. Look here, since May 29th. Hardware mitigation on new Intel CPU is a placebo. New security hole discovered.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.12701

It's an interesting paper, especially this (Kernel address space randomization) :

"
Experimental Setup.

We evaluate Fallout on two Intel machines, a Kaby Lake i7-7600U and a Coffee Lake R i9-9900K. Both machines run a fully updated Ubuntu 16.04 system, with all countermeasures in their default configuration.
On both systems, we empirically test the possible locations on the kernel in its address space obtaining about 490 locations, implying about 9 bits of entropy.

Experimental Results.

We run the attack 1000 times each, on both the Kaby Lake and the Coffee Lake machines. Our attack can recover the kernel location with 100% accuracy on both machines, within about 0.27 seconds
"

[starshipeleven]

Only if they want to be tied to an Intel chip....

FYI: works the same on Ryzen too

[starshipeleven]

It's an interesting paper, especially this (Kernel address space randomization) :

Ubuntu 16.04?

Are we sure they aren't just proving Canonical sucks at backporting security patches to their older kernels?

[starshipeleven]

He does have a valid point though. Censorship is never the right answer. What he/she says might be stupid and objectively wrong, but the appropriate response is not to forcibly silence him/her.

Ah, here we go again.

[Djhg2000]

Ah, here we go again.

Free speech as a law exists because we used to morally align with it as a concept, not the other way around. If you need a law to accept free speech as a concept then it just means you're more authoritarian than liberal.

[starshipeleven]

Free speech as a law exists because we used to morally align with it as a concept, not the other way around. If you need a law to accept free speech as a concept then it just means you're more authoritarian than liberal.

Free speech as a law (constitution article) exists to limit the government's otherwise absolute power. As said in the comic, it's there only to make sure that the government does not abuse its power to shut up dissidents.

It does not apply between individuals, you have no right to force people to listen to whatever you have to say, especially if you are a guest in a private place.

Really, if you suck so much at convincing people that you need to force them to listen to you, then you have failed and you should gtfo, you like it or not.

Ideas aren't shared by force, you little shits need to learn this.