| 1 |
Fellow Gentoo'ers, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I have to say that I am shocked by Alexander's posting. Once |
| 4 |
more I am forced to recognize that there is a difference |
| 5 |
between knowing that an exploit is "theoretically possible" |
| 6 |
and _seeing_ the actual exploit implemented in under 50 |
| 7 |
lines of code. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Having said that, I am even more shocked by the fact that |
| 10 |
this problem has been long known! As a user who doesn't like |
| 11 |
the idea of giving up control of his machines to random |
| 12 |
people on the Internet, I would kindly request a statement |
| 13 |
from the Gentoo developers about this. Specifically: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
(1) Do you agree that this is a problem? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
(2) Are there plans for getting it fixed? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
(3) Is there any estimate how long this will take? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I have read some of the material Alexander hyper-linked to |
| 22 |
and, frankly, most of it is outright frightening. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> PPPS: I really appreciate all the very good work on |
| 26 |
> hardened gcc, selinux-profiles and so on, but for me, |
| 27 |
> this all seems useless as long as the base is compromised |
| 28 |
> that easy and the user has no practical way (e.g. hashs) |
| 29 |
> to check what he gets on his machine with a 'sync'. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I wholeheartedly agree. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Peter |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-security@g.o mailing list |
Archives