| 1 |
Michael Tindal wrote: |
| 2 |
> I shouldnt send e-mails this early in the morning (sorry Ciaran)... |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| 5 |
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2004 12:16:06 +0000 Chris Bainbridge |
| 8 |
>> <chris.bainbridge@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 9 |
>> | Another problem is that a lot of people here don't seem to care about |
| 10 |
>> | security. We even had people arguing against stack-protector as |
| 11 |
>> | default because of a theoretical 3% performance hit on some rare types |
| 12 |
>> | of code. Even Microsoft with its poor security record is using stack |
| 13 |
>> | protection compilers now! |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Get your facts straight before starting off on that again. This "run |
| 16 |
>> around like a headless chicken whenever someone says the word |
| 17 |
>> 'security'" mentality is getting rather tedious. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> To second Ciaran here, |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Microsoft _does_ ship stack-protection compiler now, however, the switch |
| 24 |
> is only enabled for core system components, not every piece of software |
| 25 |
> distributed. Its definitely not on by default. A 3% performance hit |
| 26 |
> isnt the only reason its shot down, -fstack-protector is only a |
| 27 |
> band-aid, and breaks a lot of programs. It is nice for finding holes in |
| 28 |
> software, but it should only be used really by the people looking for |
| 29 |
> such holes. Imposing it on our user-base would not be a very wise |
| 30 |
> decision as it would confuse and infuriate a good number of our users. |
| 31 |
> If you're really that paranoid about security have a look at PaX and the |
| 32 |
> like, but don't go running around like this hole is the end of the |
| 33 |
> world. Even the most secure setups can be broken, so its better we take |
| 34 |
> our time to come up with a good solution than rush into something just |
| 35 |
> because you think youre compromised. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> Mike Tindal |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
...and again I would like to point out that we've been through this |
| 41 |
flame before. Why start it up again? The same responses will be sent |
| 42 |
and clutter everybody's mailbox with crap. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Steve |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives