3 ms·

I think in the past they tried to fix all the bugs, and realized they couldn't, so they started to build all sorts of mitigations in the same vein as the one yo

by binkHN 3y ago

I think in the past they tried to fix all the bugs, and realized they couldn't, so they started to build all sorts of mitigations in the same vein as the one you see posted here today. As for pledge, and the related mitigations, yes, they're not useful if you don't use them, but I see this as them innovating in the space and giving application developers more tools to build hardened applications. I see tools like AppArmor as band-aids to fix problems that shouldn't exist in the first place. The problem with these approaches are the band-aids tend to break things in unexpected ways and when that happens they simply get removed and unused.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> I see tools like AppArmor as band-aids to fix problems that shouldn't exist in the first place. I fundamentally disagree on that. I think tools like that are amazing at protecting against unknown threats/exploits. They let you lock down software and protect against future unknown exploits, badly behaving software, malicious employees etc. I think something similar should be a part of any OS claiming to be security focused. Basic DAC is woefully insufficient. On the other hand, the industry has largely found other solutions like sandboxing, but I still think MAC or RBAC or whichever has a place, certainly as art of a defense in depth strategy.