| 1 |
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:05:55 -0500 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> This is technically correct, but: how many users even know what a |
| 6 |
> security-supported arch is? I would guess zero, to a decimal point or |
| 7 |
> two. Where would I encounter that information in my daily life? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> If I pick up any software system that's run by professionals and that |
| 10 |
> has a dedicated security team, my out-of-the-box assumption is that |
| 11 |
> there aren't any known, glaring, and totally fixable security |
| 12 |
> vulnerabilities being quietly handed to me. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Having a stable arch that isn't security-supported is a meta-fail... we |
| 15 |
> have a system that fails open by giving people something that looks like |
| 16 |
> it should be safe and then (when it bites them) saying "but you didn't |
| 17 |
> read the fine print!" It should be the other way around: they should |
| 18 |
> have to read the fine print before they can use those arches. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I very much agree with this. If we end up deciding on keeping the |
| 22 |
"supported arches" system, I would like to propose that we also add a |
| 23 |
big red warning, on the download page of unsupported arches, that |
| 24 |
states that this can't be considered secure and that links to our |
| 25 |
Vulnerability Treatment Policy. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I don't have arm systems anymore, but for a while I did and at the |
| 28 |
time, I wasn't aware at all of this situation. That's not fun and we |
| 29 |
probably have many arm users right now who are unknowingly running |
| 30 |
insecure systems. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
Virgil Dupras |
Archives