Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVE-2017-9445: systemd Hit By New Security Vulnerability

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #71
    Originally posted by aht0 View Post
    Adding the features is half the issue here. What is more important for you, software quality or feature creep? Yeah, writing DNS resolver is hard but systemd-resolved is not resolver, it's only forwarder and even this is half-assed implementation, combined with a coding errors opening remote holes. It's pretty fucking critical component IF you are using it but seems like systemd devs only cared about getting a quick extra mark for systemd feature list.
    i think that might be a tad harsh. they want the features true, but every dev tries their best to do good work. The opportunity to do something new is always a strong pull to DIY, but that gets you into NIH territory.

    there have been plenty of times that I would have written something myself - because it was a cool project, only for my boss to say "here, use this existing awesome tool that already does the job"

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by Pajn View Post
      1. Just because there exists better tools does not mean all backwards compatibility is gone.
      but if you demand to rewrite all software in new toy without backwards compatibility, then all backwards compatibility is gone
      Originally posted by Pajn View Post
      2. Attacking people for writing on a forum by writing on a forum is... well... yeah...
      not for writing, but for posting shit
      Originally posted by Pajn View Post
      3. I do write my software in either Rust, Elm or TypeScript with strictNullChecks.
      no, you post shit on forums, demanding someone else to rewrite all software in rust for you

      Comment


      • #73
        Originally posted by Spazturtle View Post
        Oh really? Go to the Linux mailing list and go tell Linus to re-write the kernel in C++17 and see what he says about C++.
        i know that linus does not know c++ and had some stupid rants about it, but nevertheless he is a c++ programmer now, he writes c++ programs using qt. so yeah, really. but i'm not asking to rewrite kernel in c++ (btw, c++ does not require rewrite, it can be introduced gradually, just like in gcc or gdb - see, no rust there). i am explaining that if you want something better than c, switching to rust is incredibly stupid due to existence of c++17 (did you try telling linus to rewrite kernel in rust?)
        Last edited by pal666; 02 July 2017, 10:55 AM.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by L_A_G View Post
          It's not like that actually matters with the way one is rather heavily dependent on the other.
          no, imbecile, systemd does not depend on systemd-resolved at all

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by aht0 View Post
            .. assuming so, it would mean what? systemd becomes more secure because openssl has potential vulnerabilities as well (of which I am not doubting)..? Explain the chain of logic.
            logic is simple: systemd-haters are imbeciles, they "predict" truisms

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by DebianXFCE Jr View Post
              As the name implies C++17 isn't C.
              so is rust. if you need better modernised c, your choice is c++17
              Originally posted by DebianXFCE Jr View Post
              The C++17 is based on C but it is also an object oriented language.
              incorrect. c++ is multi-paradigm language, which is a good thing. btw, every large c project does handwritted and buggy oop
              Originally posted by DebianXFCE Jr View Post
              And Objective-C is a language developed for Apple products.
              and sky is blue, but how is it relevant to discussion? i never mentioned objc
              Originally posted by DebianXFCE Jr View Post
              Maybe you should learn first about the C family differences between them and even between particular standards to post comments?
              maybe you should increase you iq before making making fool of yourself?

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by boxie View Post
                so let's state a few things:
                No software is without bugs.
                well you could stop right there
                Originally posted by boxie View Post
                The great thing about FOSS software is that you can *add* features to existing software if it does not have what you need (although, you should probably already know this).
                so if you are missing something from systemd-resolved, you could *add* it to systemd-resolved, right?
                Originally posted by boxie View Post
                Writing a DNS resolver is technically hard
                programming is hard
                Originally posted by boxie View Post
                so now with your strawman destroyed, shall we continue?
                no, we can continue when you name foss dns which solves issues solved by systemd-resolved and does not have vulnerabilities. i'm in good mood today, so you can name two projects each having only one of those properties. and strawman was on your side when you implied that somewhere exists code which systemd people are refusing to use for no particular reason
                Last edited by pal666; 02 July 2017, 12:34 PM.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                  Broken design and 2 years of remote vulnerability should be reasons for special love?
                  in your numbers bind probably has 2 millenia of remote vulnerability

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                    but if you demand to rewrite all software in new toy without backwards compatibility, then all backwards compatibility is gone
                    1. Nobody have said rewrite all software in Rust. systemd-resolved is new enough that it should have been written in Rust from the start.
                    2. Just because you rewrite a software does not mean that all backwards compatibility is gone.
                    The project I'm currently working on at work is a rewrite of a very old software that is not maintainable, however it is used with a lot of constant traffic in production from many countries so the first part of the project was writing a huge test suite over the old software an API that we now use against our rewrite to guarantee backwards compatibility with the current code.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by pal666 View Post
                      no, imbecile, systemd does not depend on systemd-resolved at all
                      At one point did I claim the dependency chain went that way?

                      Originally posted by sdack View Post
                      *lol* Of course not. You only shouldn't dislike without reason. You still don't know me, but you thought I was a systemd fanboy. Now you think I'm cute, but the truth is, I'm awesome and you still only suck. *lol* Or how do you feel now? I bet you feel like lying. So give me your next comment. I know it's going to be something about how you're trying to keep your boat afloat. Looking forward to it. Bring the hate.
                      I've explained the multitude of reasons why I don't like systemd (being a textbook example of feature creep, the way they handle bugs and knowingly creating way too big of an attack surface for something that can have catastrophic consequences if compromised to name a few) and I really can't be bothered to explain them in detail every time I express my dislike for the thing.

                      But hey, it's like like I can stop you from acting like a 12-year-old (I can't imagine anyone writing like you without being one or being mentally handicapped) or acting like there's nothing wrong a fundamentally flawed piece of software. The Titanic was totally unsinkable and crewed by people who totally knew what they were doing until it ran into an iceberg despite being warned about them in advance and sank as a result.
                      Last edited by L_A_G; 02 July 2017, 06:48 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X