4 ms·
Stating that his claim is something else doesn't make it true. If you read the article he's saying things such as: 1. Things should be written in different (sa
by bkor 10y ago
Stating that his claim is something else doesn't make it true. If you read the article he's saying things such as:
1. Things should be written in different (safer) languages.
2. That a compromise in a mail server is already bad so having systemd protect the mail server according to him does NOT help
At least 50% is spend on those bits. Those are poor arguments to make. Systemd adds additional capabilities to make the overall system safer. You can do both. He stated nothing about an increased attack surface.
- lmm 10y agoOf course I read the article. Maybe you didn't? > 2. That a compromise in a mail server is already bad so having systemd protect the mail server according to him does NOT help Right, the point of which is, as I said: systemd does not offer a substantial enhancement to system security > He stated nothing about an increased attack surface. He made reference to "baggage" which could mean many things. But either way the argument runs the same: systemd may offer some enhancement to security, but not a substantial one, not one that can only be achieved by using systemd, and not one that's worth the cost of using systemd.
- agwa 10y agoThis is exactly my argument! Thank you.