| 1 |
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:54:40 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 14:48 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 14:28:28 +0100 |
| 6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 11:58 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > > On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 20:28:49 +0100 |
| 10 |
> > > > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 11 |
> > > > |
| 12 |
> > > > > --- |
| 13 |
> > > > > What do you think? |
| 14 |
> > > > > |
| 15 |
> > > > |
| 16 |
> > > > What is the difference with sunrise ? |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > The difference, as noted in the mail, is that it doesn't rely |
| 19 |
> > > on developers having time to review ebuilds. Therefore, it is |
| 20 |
> > > less likely to die because of developers lacking time to review |
| 21 |
> > > stuff. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > Then I fear you will see the same pitfalls, and it already started: |
| 25 |
> > I recall sunrise haters being very strongly against the idea |
| 26 |
> > because, TBH, our sandboxing mechanism isn't a real sandbox. It may |
| 27 |
> > have improved, but I doubt it's up to the point that we can safely |
| 28 |
> > run untrusted code there. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Sandboxing has nothing to do with security, and trying to 'improve' |
| 31 |
> its security is a waste of time. What's the point of preventing |
| 32 |
> ebuilds from doing malicious things at build time if they can install |
| 33 |
> files that do malicious things afterwards? |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Because one may or may not run a malicious binary. You are more likely |
| 37 |
to install it. And even more likely to source the ebuild. |
Archives