> Security must be embedded in each program from the start. Agreed. Wholeheartedly. However, the way most of us interpret that bit of conventional wisdom is th

> Security must be embedded in each program from the start. Agreed. Wholeheartedly. However, the way most of us interpret that bit of conventional wisdom is that security should be added to existing features, for example, by cleansing user input and not passing on tainted input (shellshock is a classic example of this, in the vein of a system-based XSS vuln). It does not mean that we should develop "security" features as addons to existing systems. In this case, they use an untested cryptographic primitive (SSKG) which was published by Poettering's brother almost a year after the feature landed. That's negligent and reeks of nepotism. I wouldn't recommend that any sysadmin use this feature in a security context (there are existing security products that provide log-signing, with security notifications and patches).