Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stack smash protected daemons
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:39:13
Message-Id: 20040925183539.0d549b0b@snowdrop.home
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Stack smash protected daemons by Bart Lauwers
1 On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:26:26 +0200 Bart Lauwers <blauwers@g.o>
2 wrote:
3 | 1) Safety is important, it should be our aim to have our
4 | default system as secure as it possibly could be.
5
6 Uh, no. A *reasonable* level of security is good. "As secure as it
7 possibly could be" means turning on grsec, selinux etc in maximum
8 security mode, which makes a box unusable unless you spend a lot of
9 time screwing around with things. Nothing wrong with that under certain
10 circumstances, of course, but it should *not* be a default.
11
12 | 3) A good housefather does not leave the front door of any home open
13 | at night.
14
15 There is a difference between leaving the front door open and installing
16 fifty seven locks on the door.
17
18 | Anyone who thinks that a speed tradeoff is too much for better
19 | protection is crazy. Do us all a favor and play a go night of russian
20 | roulette by yourself to get your thrills.
21
22 You could equally say that anyone who is prepared to take a nasty
23 performance hit for possible slight damage mitigation is paranoid. There
24 is a huge difference between "not using ssp" and "playing russian
25 roulette".
26
27 I kinda wonder about the security FUD certain people are spreading...
28
29 --
30 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Sparc, MIPS, Vim, Fluxbox)
31 Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org
32 Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Stack smash protected daemons Bart Lauwers <blauwers@g.o>