5 ms·

This is why you don't run software that fossilized back in the nineties. Qmail was solid code but hasn't received the support and on-going development it neede

This is why you don't run software that fossilized back in the nineties. Qmail was solid code but hasn't received the support and on-going development it needed. Use postfix instead for a secure MTA.

smokecab 6y ago
Your prejudice against out-of-fashion software is unfounded. Qmail had a bug because qmail had a bug, not because it hasn't been rewritten in the past week. The major web browsers, for example, are all under very active development, yet new RCE (!) bugs are regularly introduced into them.
- loup-vaillant 6y ago
  The bug was known 15 years back, and not fixed.
- Snelius 6y ago
  "But we need to rewrite it with Rust!!" Crazy..
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    I said nothing about rust, and the alternative I proposed (postfix) is written in C.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  This isn't "out-of-fasion prejudice". This is a bug not being fixed for over a decade, which is clear evidence that it's not being adequately maintained. I've got nothing against qmail in principle, but it clearly hasn't received the attention it needs.
titzer 6y ago
Integer overflow bug causing manual memory allocation bug leading to RCE. All too common. We need to stop relying on software written in unsafe languages.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  It is about safe and unsafe implementations rather than safe and unsafe languages.
  - titzer 6y ago
    This specific type of vulnerability and the tens of thousands of similar ones like it would absolutely have been prevented by a safe programming language.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      This specific type of vulnerability would not be an issue in a safe C implementation for example, just like it would be an issue in an unsafe rust implementation.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        "safe C" and "unsafe Rust" sound like variant languages to me.
        dependenttypes 6y ago
        How is "safe C" a variant language when it is within what the standard allows?
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        The unsafeness of C is pretty widespread and fundamental. Whatever code you end up with is either going to be incompatible with normal compilers, or it's going to be so full of library calls that you can barely recognize it as C anymore. Unless you count sandboxing the entire program, and allowing errors inside the sandbox as long as they don't escape. Then C-to-WASM would be a safe C compiler, I guess.
        6y ago
peterwwillis 6y ago
Postfix has 9 CVEs. Qmail has 1. It would seem the numbers don't agree with you.
- xorcist 6y ago
  Postfix has much more functionality out of the box so the comparison isn't really fair. Both are examples of extremely well designed software written with care by security minded persons.
  - zrm 6y ago
    > Postfix has much more functionality out of the box so the comparison isn't really fair. But that's kind of the point. 20 years worth of feature accumulation is 20 years worth of additional attack surface, which is a liability if all you need is what qmail does.

This is why you don't run software that fossilized back in the nineties. Qmail was solid code but hasn't received the support and on-going development it needed. Use postfix instead for a secure MTA.

smokecab 6y ago

Your prejudice against out-of-fashion software is unfounded. Qmail had a bug because qmail had a bug, not because it hasn't been rewritten in the past week. The major web browsers, for example, are all under very active development, yet new RCE (!) bugs are regularly introduced into them.

loup-vaillant 6y ago
The bug was known 15 years back, and not fixed.
Snelius 6y ago
"But we need to rewrite it with Rust!!" Crazy..
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  I said nothing about rust, and the alternative I proposed (postfix) is written in C.
mmm_grayons 6y ago
This isn't "out-of-fasion prejudice". This is a bug not being fixed for over a decade, which is clear evidence that it's not being adequately maintained. I've got nothing against qmail in principle, but it clearly hasn't received the attention it needs.

titzer 6y ago

Integer overflow bug causing manual memory allocation bug leading to RCE. All too common. We need to stop relying on software written in unsafe languages.

dependenttypes 6y ago
It is about safe and unsafe implementations rather than safe and unsafe languages.
- titzer 6y ago
  This specific type of vulnerability and the tens of thousands of similar ones like it would absolutely have been prevented by a safe programming language.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    This specific type of vulnerability would not be an issue in a safe C implementation for example, just like it would be an issue in an unsafe rust implementation.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      "safe C" and "unsafe Rust" sound like variant languages to me.
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        How is "safe C" a variant language when it is within what the standard allows?
        Dylan16807 6y ago
        The unsafeness of C is pretty widespread and fundamental. Whatever code you end up with is either going to be incompatible with normal compilers, or it's going to be so full of library calls that you can barely recognize it as C anymore. Unless you count sandboxing the entire program, and allowing errors inside the sandbox as long as they don't escape. Then C-to-WASM would be a safe C compiler, I guess.
        6y ago

peterwwillis 6y ago

Postfix has 9 CVEs. Qmail has 1. It would seem the numbers don't agree with you.

xorcist 6y ago
Postfix has much more functionality out of the box so the comparison isn't really fair. Both are examples of extremely well designed software written with care by security minded persons.
- zrm 6y ago
  > Postfix has much more functionality out of the box so the comparison isn't really fair. But that's kind of the point. 20 years worth of feature accumulation is 20 years worth of additional attack surface, which is a liability if all you need is what qmail does.