| 1 |
On 12/4/18 4:05 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I personally don't agree with part of this section; security is |
| 4 |
> relative, and if it is stated to not be supported there are no security |
| 5 |
> assumptions. If anything the removal of these arches as security |
| 6 |
> supported demonstrates an active decisions not to support them, and |
| 7 |
> signals to users of these arches that they can't depend on security |
| 8 |
> information from Gentoo. Stable generally means a stable tree of |
| 9 |
> dependencies, without security assumptions, if this is e.g used in a |
| 10 |
> closed lab that likely doesn't impact much. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
This is technically correct, but: how many users even know what a |
| 14 |
security-supported arch is? I would guess zero, to a decimal point or |
| 15 |
two. Where would I encounter that information in my daily life? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If I pick up any software system that's run by professionals and that |
| 18 |
has a dedicated security team, my out-of-the-box assumption is that |
| 19 |
there aren't any known, glaring, and totally fixable security |
| 20 |
vulnerabilities being quietly handed to me. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Having a stable arch that isn't security-supported is a meta-fail... we |
| 23 |
have a system that fails open by giving people something that looks like |
| 24 |
it should be safe and then (when it bites them) saying "but you didn't |
| 25 |
read the fine print!" It should be the other way around: they should |
| 26 |
have to read the fine print before they can use those arches. |
Archives