3 ms·
At least there's no history of security issues with that.
by tclancy 3mo ago
At least there's no history of security issues with that.
- tptacek 3mo agoCan you explain how the COM/ActiveX security history applies here?
- saltcured 3mo agoI had a similar wincing reaction to the expressed idea of wanting to converge output, control, and interaction under a terminal muxer in today's wacky world. But that's because today's world is forcing us towards overwhelming risk management and compliance systems like NIST 800-53 and friends. If anything, these mechanisms are being drawn, quartered, and spread to the opposite corners of the Earth. Control via configuration management systems with configuration drift detection etc. Outputs and diagnostics via monitoring, logging, audit, and accountability systems. Authorization systems with extreme least privilege, draconian rules for privileged role assumption. Interaction removed from the entire operations plane, so it only exists in some application domain concepts as a sort of ship in a bottle, which eventually perversely recurses into the same mindset for domains with interesting content and user roles. Lots of access path restrictions intentionally limiting which usage scenario is available in which combination to which user type from which locale with which client device. So the idea of flexible and convenient fusion of many different IO and control paths into a portable and remotely attachable terminal UX seems like the complete antithesis..?
- BobbyTables2 3mo agoOr such a fusion will be in the next release of systemd…
- tclancy 2mo agoThe specific technology causes security issues? Nope. The Visual Basic empowers a whole generation of non-coders to become sort of coders causes security issues? Yeah, I think I can do that with AI.