systemd. dbus, udev, etc are sometimes a really bad idea

Posted May 5, 2016 8:35 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: systemd. dbus, udev, etc are sometimes a really bad idea by pizza
Parent article: Devuan Jessie beta released

What exactly is the threat vector here?

Come on. Have someone revoked your Google access? First link I've found. Second one. Third. And more recent.

Some of these could be prevented by refusal to talk to some random hardware, some couldn't, but the general flaw is always the same: it's always the battle of "security vs convenience" and security rarely wins.

to post comments

systemd. dbus, udev, etc are sometimes a really bad idea

Posted May 5, 2016 10:38 UTC (Thu) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

What do any of those examples have to do with an attack that requires *physical* access to your firewall? And, going back to my point, an attack that, in order to be successful, requires knowledge only obtainable if you have already completely compromised everything already?

systemd. dbus, udev, etc are sometimes a really bad idea

Posted May 5, 2016 19:45 UTC (Thu) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

so you say that people should not be able to defend themselves against an attach scenario that you deem invalid.

Why should your judgement trump everyone else's?