5 ms·

You don't really need jets of lava to have a catastrophe. Also, it doesn't have to happen right away - OpenSSL was neglected for years before heartbleed happene

by d33 10y ago

You don't really need jets of lava to have a catastrophe. Also, it doesn't have to happen right away - OpenSSL was neglected for years before heartbleed happened. Also, keep in mind that it only takes one vuln to compromise the system and we're definitely hearing of too many of them throughout the time. It is NOT a secure project. It's not even remotely so. The development process is too fast and erratic.

scrollaway 10y ago
Yes, tell us all you know about the systemd development process. And while you're at it, enlighten us all about how the it is "too fast"; average citizens like myself see but a pace far slower than those other "NOT secure projects" Chromium, Linux and Postgres.
- d33 10y ago
  Compare the sizes of community within Chromium/Linux/PostgreSQL. See how much more accent they put on security. Have you seen any fuzzing attempts started around SystemD, for example?
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    You are making a comment about "The development process [being] too fast and erratic" (it is not). I'm not defending the systemd process, I'm making a point about that. Then again, if you think "obfuscating the init process" is a valid description of what systemd does per your other comment, I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other than armchair security expertise...
    - d33 10y ago
      You just resorted to ad personam for the second time. This is my last post in this discussion because of that. Here's why I believe it obfuscates the init process - it clearly is less transparent now. Consider logging, consider a new DSL (in terms of keywords, not necessarily syntax) needed to describe services, consider lack of determinism it brings. Yes, it's faster, but definitely more opaque. As for development process - they clearly have no time to refactor, which makes the code have way too little modularity. It's a huge blob linked against libsystemd and fuzzing the components would really be a mess. The project has much too much responsibility, handling parts of system that could easily be delegated to separate projects. It interferes with desktop environments, GNOME being an example.
      - scrollaway 10y ago
        > You just resorted to ad personam for the second time. ...? I realized my first post was unnecessarily sarcastic and edited that part out. It's hard to comment about your opinions without talking about your opinions. But okay, you've offered a list, let's go through it: > Consider logging Logging is in a binary format, but is more consistently accessible. > consider a new DSL In terms of keywords? Do you mean like, which value does what in .service files? That's all extremely well documented. Consider the corresponding init shell scripts, how are they "more transparent" if you have to know shell pretty damn well in order to understand them? > consider lack of determinism it brings Now I completely lost you. sysvinit brings far less determinism to the table. If I found that paragraph in the wild without context I would assume it's about sysvinit.
        bandrami 10y ago
        sysvinit brings far less determinism to the table Hm. I was with you until that. The reason I don't have systemd in production is that it's like pulling teeth to get a deterministic service initiation order. For all their flaws, the good thing about init.d scripts was that you knew exactly what order things came up and down in, because it was spelled out in a shell script you could view and edit. This was great for administrators, but absolute hell for distribution maintainers; I totally get why the distros went to systemd. But since it solves their problems, rather than mine, it's not particularly useful to me (I use GNU PIES in production, which is kind of a middle ground: it can run inittab and rc.d scripts, but it also has a declarative native format)
        scrollaway 10y ago
        That's because systemd by default is asynchronous, whereas init by default is linear. It's the main feature of systemd: Execution order is usually not important, it only leads to slower boot. For when it is important, systemd can guarantee execution order by using its dependency system. Are you a distro maintainer? I've never heard that it was "hell for distribution maintainers", quite the opposite. What's the issue with this?

by d33 10y ago

scrollaway 10y ago

Yes, tell us all you know about the systemd development process. And while you're at it, enlighten us all about how the it is "too fast"; average citizens like myself see but a pace far slower than those other "NOT secure projects" Chromium, Linux and Postgres.

d33 10y ago
Compare the sizes of community within Chromium/Linux/PostgreSQL. See how much more accent they put on security. Have you seen any fuzzing attempts started around SystemD, for example?
- scrollaway 10y ago
  You are making a comment about "The development process [being] too fast and erratic" (it is not). I'm not defending the systemd process, I'm making a point about that. Then again, if you think "obfuscating the init process" is a valid description of what systemd does per your other comment, I'm having a hard time seeing this as anything other than armchair security expertise...
  - d33 10y ago
    You just resorted to ad personam for the second time. This is my last post in this discussion because of that. Here's why I believe it obfuscates the init process - it clearly is less transparent now. Consider logging, consider a new DSL (in terms of keywords, not necessarily syntax) needed to describe services, consider lack of determinism it brings. Yes, it's faster, but definitely more opaque. As for development process - they clearly have no time to refactor, which makes the code have way too little modularity. It's a huge blob linked against libsystemd and fuzzing the components would really be a mess. The project has much too much responsibility, handling parts of system that could easily be delegated to separate projects. It interferes with desktop environments, GNOME being an example.
    - scrollaway 10y ago
      > You just resorted to ad personam for the second time. ...? I realized my first post was unnecessarily sarcastic and edited that part out. It's hard to comment about your opinions without talking about your opinions. But okay, you've offered a list, let's go through it: > Consider logging Logging is in a binary format, but is more consistently accessible. > consider a new DSL In terms of keywords? Do you mean like, which value does what in .service files? That's all extremely well documented. Consider the corresponding init shell scripts, how are they "more transparent" if you have to know shell pretty damn well in order to understand them? > consider lack of determinism it brings Now I completely lost you. sysvinit brings far less determinism to the table. If I found that paragraph in the wild without context I would assume it's about sysvinit.
      - bandrami 10y ago
        sysvinit brings far less determinism to the table Hm. I was with you until that. The reason I don't have systemd in production is that it's like pulling teeth to get a deterministic service initiation order. For all their flaws, the good thing about init.d scripts was that you knew exactly what order things came up and down in, because it was spelled out in a shell script you could view and edit. This was great for administrators, but absolute hell for distribution maintainers; I totally get why the distros went to systemd. But since it solves their problems, rather than mine, it's not particularly useful to me (I use GNU PIES in production, which is kind of a middle ground: it can run inittab and rc.d scripts, but it also has a declarative native format)
        scrollaway 10y ago
        That's because systemd by default is asynchronous, whereas init by default is linear. It's the main feature of systemd: Execution order is usually not important, it only leads to slower boot. For when it is important, systemd can guarantee execution order by using its dependency system. Are you a distro maintainer? I've never heard that it was "hell for distribution maintainers", quite the opposite. What's the issue with this?