Re: [gentoo-dev] Stack smash protected daemons

[Rumen Yotov]

On сб, 2004-09-25 at 20:26, Bart Lauwers wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Having read the whole thread here are some I feel important points to be made:
> 1) Safety is important, it should be our aim to have our default system as
> secure as it possibly could be. Just look at the reviews some OS providers
> get over security. A good computer system should be protected against bad
> code as much as possible.
> 2) The risk is real and errors against this seem common.
> 3) A good  housefather does not leave the front door of any home open at
> night.
> 4) Protection is possible/available (to a degree) at system level.
> 5) most people prefer to know they can have a reasonable trust in their
> computer system to operate reliably and consistently by default
>
> Here are some of the things not to like about what is proposed so far:
> 1) Adjusting all ebuilds (not very productive, only adds clutter to ebuilds)
> 2) Making new features, use flags whatever (same idea)
> 3) Not doing anything would not be very responsible
>
> What I propose to do (pick the low hanging fruit):
> 1) Add stack protector and and any similar 'features' stable in hardened to
> the default CLFAGS of the gentoo install/profiles. By stable I mean things
> which do not break the majority of functionality.
> 2) broken ebuilds can filter-flags until fixed (better approach since you are
> only fixing up ebuilds for broken stuff and may also prompt the devs to try
> and make the protection work).
> 3) People who prefer not to be protected can remove the settings from their
> CFLAGS
> 4) get stuff virus, spam, etc protection functional and leveraged into the
> defaults in other words turn on those USE flags in the standard profiles
>
> A personal opinion:
> Anyone who thinks that a speed tradeoff is too much for better protection is
> crazy. Do us all a favor and play a go night of russian roulette by yourself
> to get your thrills.
>
> There's more to be said on security but I feel too lazy right now to type it
> so if this isn't convinving you let us know.
>
> Cheers,
>  Bart
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFBVapCBmJog5qpEKkRAriBAJ4zdBT49QVTvtGrkaXM1XqabfThdQCfdanA
> xZCyMyIV3+yu+sYf6fVHDuw=
> =FTfe
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
Hi,
Totally agree here.
1.Best is enable for all minus broken ones till fixed.
2.Some sort of beginning is needed and think that's easiest and most
balanced path. Also for the devs. NO USE or FEATURES.
PS: plus a comment in make.conf for its purpose and a way to disable if
somebody wishes.
Thanks
Rumen