5 ms·

A lot of Java software is "(1) download the jar file, (2) java -jar thefile.jar". Agree it's good for the user, but when people talk about distributing a stati

A lot of Java software is "(1) download the jar file, (2) java -jar thefile.jar". Agree it's good for the user, but when people talk about distributing a statically-linked program the "what about security updates" question invariably comes up.

matt_wulfeck 11y ago
It is still easier with static compiles if you ask me: "Make sure you're running Gogs 1.64.2 or above" "Make sure you're running Gogs 1.64.2, OpenSSL 1.2e, libcrypt 3.73, leftpad 2.0..." Especially when the deployment of said binaries doesn't involve anything installed on the host OS.
- raimue 11y ago
  "Make sure you run Foo 1.7, Bar 2.1, Baz 2.3, ..." "Make sure you update to OpenSSL 1.2e and restart all services." If you think of more than one program using the same module, shared libraries make a lot of sense.
  - chm 11y ago
    They do, but static linking means the developer actually does have control of the environment. What happens if you ship the latest and greatest binary but the shared libraries aren't updated by the user?
    - raimue 11y ago
      That is why libraries guarantee API/ABI compatibility within a version number (SONAME). The package manager of your distribution will be responsible for updating the required dependencies if needed. Of course, if the user chooses to install software outside of the package manager, it is their responsibility to upgrade dependencies accordingly.
  - robmccoll 11y ago
    You do run into false dependencies causing needless headaches with dynamic libraries though. There's a vulnerability in hash X in OpenSSL. One (or worse zero) of my 15 installed applications that depend on OpenSSL actually uses hash X, but in order to upgrade, I have to carefully manage those 15 dependencies. With statically linked dependencies, the hash X code wouldn't be in any of the other binaries and I only update the one (or perhaps don't have to update at all).
    - raimue 11y ago
      What do you mean by managing dependencies? You upgrade to an OpenSSL version that fixes hash X and be done with it? I don't understand your point.
      - mikecb 11y ago
        Can't upgrade if the fix was dropping the hash because it's fundamentally flawed.
        raimue 11y ago
        That would be an ABI incompatible change. These are only allowed when increasing the compatibility version (SONAME). You would immediately notice such a change. For the usual package managers that would even require to create a new package.
      - robmccoll 11y ago
        I guess under the assumption of everyone following sane versioning practices, maintaining alias symlinks, and/or really solid package management and compatibility testing, this isn't such an issue. If the system admin was compiling a lot of their own libraries and binaries that don't necessarily follow those best practices, it becomes more of a problem. The system admin doesn't know what functionality in the library is used by each binary and weather or not the upgrade is really necessary. If the binaries are self-contained and statically linked, the maintainer of the actual software can stay abreast of security updates in the libraries that they are using and ship updates only when vulnerabilities affect functionality that they use. The sys-admin then only has to download updated binaries if truly necessary and tracking any dependencies on the end-user system becomes unneeded. Not really arguing that it's a better setup. It does mean that software maintainers have to stay active and on-top of security patches. The complexity is inherent, it's just a matter of shifting it around onto different people.
- incepted 11y ago
  > It is still easier with static compiles if you ask me You'd be surprised how many users have no idea whether they are running the 32bit or 64bit version of their OS. For them, running a Go binary will be anything but easy.
  - weberc2 11y ago
    You'll have the same problem with dynamic linking. It's even worse when your user has to know which version of Python/Java/etc they need to run your software on. The best case for your user is a static native binary behind a package repository.
mikecb 11y ago
Now I have to install java and keep it up to date, in addition to the jar.
- mateuszf 11y ago
  Yeah, the missing bit is that this should be done by OS vendors which sadly is not true.
  - andor 11y ago
    If package management is important to you, you might want to try an operating system that integrates it natively.
    - mateuszf 11y ago
      The point of "run anywhere" is to not have to search for a special operating system.
      - andor 11y ago
        I wouldn't conflate the "run anywhere" aspect with OS-level package management. How operating systems handle updates is unrelated to Java, and affects other applications on the system as well. Think about other "run anywhere" technology like Flash, PDF (Adobe Reader), Microsoft Office, Browsers -- they also don't have a great security story and need constant updates. Adobe and Sun decided to ship their software with "Update Managers". Everybody loved them (not), but at least they fulfilled their purpose. 10 years later, Google added background updates with binary patching to Chrome on Windows and Mac OS (not needed on Linux). They decided to just install updates without the user's consent, because that will at least keep them safe. Google can get away with it because everybody expects them to know what they're doing. But I certainly don't want downloading code at runtime to become the norm. That's why distributing updates for third-party apps should be an operating system feature, as it is in all popular Linux distributions. Microsoft and Apple, please feel free to copy.
schmichael 11y ago
A lot of Java software is also "(1) download the tar, (2) run bin/whatever which is a 500 line bash script for setting up the jvm environment"
- jonathankoren 11y ago
  6 of one, half a dozen of the other. As long as it's behind and simple interface and it works, I don't care what it actually does.
  - tbrock 11y ago
    And..., just like that, you are part of a bot net.
    - BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
      The truth is, nobody personally vets the source of all the software they use. Even people who compile everything themselves aren't reading the source code that came over the wire. It baffles me when people fret over "don't blindly run that curl|bash installation script because security!" when nobody would bat an eye at a .deb downloaded from the same web site.
      - blub 11y ago
        There are many that take an interest in securing their workstations, just as there are many negligent individuals who blindly run things they download from somewhere. A minimum amount of care when installing things (checking signatures/checksums, reading install scripts, etc) should be common sense and not doing that is grossly negligent.
        BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
        What's the point of reading an install script if you don't also read the source of what the script is installing? That's like a proofreader only editing the intro paragraph and then signing off on the entire essay.
weberc2 11y ago
Don't forget (0) install the right JVM. This has caused me much grief in the past, at least on Linux.
beefsack 11y ago
Assuming you have the JVM installed.

matt_wulfeck 11y ago

It is still easier with static compiles if you ask me: "Make sure you're running Gogs 1.64.2 or above" "Make sure you're running Gogs 1.64.2, OpenSSL 1.2e, libcrypt 3.73, leftpad 2.0..." Especially when the deployment of said binaries doesn't involve anything installed on the host OS.

raimue 11y ago
"Make sure you run Foo 1.7, Bar 2.1, Baz 2.3, ..." "Make sure you update to OpenSSL 1.2e and restart all services." If you think of more than one program using the same module, shared libraries make a lot of sense.
- chm 11y ago
  They do, but static linking means the developer actually does have control of the environment. What happens if you ship the latest and greatest binary but the shared libraries aren't updated by the user?
  - raimue 11y ago
    That is why libraries guarantee API/ABI compatibility within a version number (SONAME). The package manager of your distribution will be responsible for updating the required dependencies if needed. Of course, if the user chooses to install software outside of the package manager, it is their responsibility to upgrade dependencies accordingly.
- robmccoll 11y ago
  You do run into false dependencies causing needless headaches with dynamic libraries though. There's a vulnerability in hash X in OpenSSL. One (or worse zero) of my 15 installed applications that depend on OpenSSL actually uses hash X, but in order to upgrade, I have to carefully manage those 15 dependencies. With statically linked dependencies, the hash X code wouldn't be in any of the other binaries and I only update the one (or perhaps don't have to update at all).
  - raimue 11y ago
    What do you mean by managing dependencies? You upgrade to an OpenSSL version that fixes hash X and be done with it? I don't understand your point.
    - mikecb 11y ago
      Can't upgrade if the fix was dropping the hash because it's fundamentally flawed.
      - raimue 11y ago
        That would be an ABI incompatible change. These are only allowed when increasing the compatibility version (SONAME). You would immediately notice such a change. For the usual package managers that would even require to create a new package.
    - robmccoll 11y ago
      I guess under the assumption of everyone following sane versioning practices, maintaining alias symlinks, and/or really solid package management and compatibility testing, this isn't such an issue. If the system admin was compiling a lot of their own libraries and binaries that don't necessarily follow those best practices, it becomes more of a problem. The system admin doesn't know what functionality in the library is used by each binary and weather or not the upgrade is really necessary. If the binaries are self-contained and statically linked, the maintainer of the actual software can stay abreast of security updates in the libraries that they are using and ship updates only when vulnerabilities affect functionality that they use. The sys-admin then only has to download updated binaries if truly necessary and tracking any dependencies on the end-user system becomes unneeded. Not really arguing that it's a better setup. It does mean that software maintainers have to stay active and on-top of security patches. The complexity is inherent, it's just a matter of shifting it around onto different people.
incepted 11y ago
> It is still easier with static compiles if you ask me You'd be surprised how many users have no idea whether they are running the 32bit or 64bit version of their OS. For them, running a Go binary will be anything but easy.
- weberc2 11y ago
  You'll have the same problem with dynamic linking. It's even worse when your user has to know which version of Python/Java/etc they need to run your software on. The best case for your user is a static native binary behind a package repository.

mikecb 11y ago

Now I have to install java and keep it up to date, in addition to the jar.

mateuszf 11y ago
Yeah, the missing bit is that this should be done by OS vendors which sadly is not true.
- andor 11y ago
  If package management is important to you, you might want to try an operating system that integrates it natively.
  - mateuszf 11y ago
    The point of "run anywhere" is to not have to search for a special operating system.
    - andor 11y ago
      I wouldn't conflate the "run anywhere" aspect with OS-level package management. How operating systems handle updates is unrelated to Java, and affects other applications on the system as well. Think about other "run anywhere" technology like Flash, PDF (Adobe Reader), Microsoft Office, Browsers -- they also don't have a great security story and need constant updates. Adobe and Sun decided to ship their software with "Update Managers". Everybody loved them (not), but at least they fulfilled their purpose. 10 years later, Google added background updates with binary patching to Chrome on Windows and Mac OS (not needed on Linux). They decided to just install updates without the user's consent, because that will at least keep them safe. Google can get away with it because everybody expects them to know what they're doing. But I certainly don't want downloading code at runtime to become the norm. That's why distributing updates for third-party apps should be an operating system feature, as it is in all popular Linux distributions. Microsoft and Apple, please feel free to copy.

schmichael 11y ago

A lot of Java software is also "(1) download the tar, (2) run bin/whatever which is a 500 line bash script for setting up the jvm environment"

jonathankoren 11y ago
6 of one, half a dozen of the other. As long as it's behind and simple interface and it works, I don't care what it actually does.
- tbrock 11y ago
  And..., just like that, you are part of a bot net.
  - BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
    The truth is, nobody personally vets the source of all the software they use. Even people who compile everything themselves aren't reading the source code that came over the wire. It baffles me when people fret over "don't blindly run that curl|bash installation script because security!" when nobody would bat an eye at a .deb downloaded from the same web site.
    - blub 11y ago
      There are many that take an interest in securing their workstations, just as there are many negligent individuals who blindly run things they download from somewhere. A minimum amount of care when installing things (checking signatures/checksums, reading install scripts, etc) should be common sense and not doing that is grossly negligent.
      - BHSPitMonkey 11y ago
        What's the point of reading an install script if you don't also read the source of what the script is installing? That's like a proofreader only editing the intro paragraph and then signing off on the entire essay.

weberc2 11y ago

Don't forget (0) install the right JVM. This has caused me much grief in the past, at least on Linux.

beefsack 11y ago

Assuming you have the JVM installed.