3 ms·
Can you even hear what you are saying? Don't you find it ridiculous to blame the XZ backdoor on systemd, instead of the actual hacker? Even if systemd did not
by nialv7 2y ago
Can you even hear what you are saying? Don't you find it ridiculous to blame the XZ backdoor on systemd, instead of the actual hacker?
Even if systemd did not exist, the hacker would have just picked something else to infiltrate.
- bitwize 2y agoOf course, the actual hacker was to blame, but systemd was implicated. The fact that the attacker was willing to settle for compromising just Debian and Red Hat systems indicated that they perceived the path from xz to libsystemd was the easiest way to effect the backdoor and that doing it any other way would have been too much work for marginally little gain (Red Hat and Debian systems being so common).
- pessimizer 2y ago> Don't you find it ridiculous to blame the XZ backdoor on systemd, instead of the actual hacker? This is a great argument against all computer security. If you believe in securing your computer, you're supporting hackers. Because if you ever believe that a lock has failed, you're saying the thief is innocent; that's how logic works.
- nialv7 2y agoWell, you conveniently ignored half of my point. Even without ssh depending on systemd (dependency introduced by distro maintainers, not systemd, mind you), a backdoor in xz can still exploit your system in a myriad of ways. And secondly, I would say even if nobody is going to blame me, I would still secure my systems. Why? To protect my data of course.