| 1 |
Michał Górny posted on Sun, 20 Aug 2017 09:53:54 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> W dniu nie, 20.08.2017 o godzinie 00∶39 -0500, użytkownik R0b0t1 |
| 4 |
> napisał: |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> The discussion is nice but no one has actually touched on the |
| 7 |
>> technical merits of removing the packages besides "they are old." |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
>> So I ask again: On what basis are the hardened sources being removed |
| 10 |
>> from the tree? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Old kernel versions are a natural vulnerability targets. Even if they |
| 13 |
> are not vulnerable at the moment, they surely will be soon enough. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Hardened-sources isn't just some generic package, where perhaps masking |
| 18 |
it as vulnerable but leaving it in the tree for those wishing to use it |
| 19 |
for its primary purpose /despite/ vulns, might arguably be justified. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
In this case, that "primary purpose" *is* resistance to attack, and |
| 22 |
leaving old and now unsupported versions in the tree when they're |
| 23 |
guaranteed to be increasingly vulnerable to new attacks is simply |
| 24 |
irresponsible, with no logical argument that can be made otherwise, thus |
| 25 |
the removal. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Were it any other package, with any other primary purpose... but it's not. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 31 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 32 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives