| 1 |
On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 15:04:12 -0700 |
| 2 |
Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> then how do I know that the |
| 6 |
> source code I build on my Gentoo machines hasn't been modified by someone |
| 7 |
> to provide access to my machine, networks, etc.? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
There are two approaches to system development that tend to mitigate |
| 11 |
all security concerns: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
1) Highly distributed development |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
2) Simplicity of design |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If the component pieces of a system are independently developed |
| 18 |
by widely scattered and unrelated development teams then there |
| 19 |
is much less chance for any integrated security attacks. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Also, if the overall system remains simple and each component is |
| 22 |
narrowly focused then the result is better transparency for the user |
| 23 |
which insures less opportunity for attack. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Linux _used_ to adhere to these two principles, but currently it |
| 26 |
is more and more moving toward monolithic development and much |
| 27 |
reduced simplicity. I refer especially to the Freedesktop |
| 28 |
project, which is slowly becoming the centralized headquarters |
| 29 |
for everything graphical. I also mention systemd, with its plethora |
| 30 |
of system daemons that obscure all system transparency. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
From the beginning, Linux, due to its faithfulness to the above |
| 33 |
two principles, allowed the user to fully control and easily understand |
| 34 |
the operation of his system. This situation is now being threatened |
| 35 |
with freedesktop, systemd, etc., and security attacks can only become |
| 36 |
more feasible. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
We, as a community of Linux users, have to adamantly oppose these |
| 39 |
monolithic projects that attempt to destroy choice and transform |
| 40 |
Linux into another Microsoft Windows. |
Archives