Update blog systemd Insecurity to version 3.1.0.13.

This commit is contained in:
inference 2023-03-13 14:48:34 +00:00
commit ceed8400d4
Signed by: inference
SSH Key Fingerprint: SHA256:9Pl0nZ2UJacgm+IeEtLSZ4FOESgP1eKCtRflfPfdX9M

View File

@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
<!-- Copyright 2022-2023 Jake Winters --> <!-- Copyright 2022-2023 Jake Winters -->
<!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause-Clear --> <!-- SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause-Clear -->
<!-- Version: 2.0.0.11 --> <!-- Version: 3.1.0.13 -->
<html> <html>
@ -31,86 +31,115 @@
</div> </div>
<body> <body>
<h1>Blog - #1</h1> <h1>Blog - #1</h1>
<br> <br>
<h2>systemd Insecurity</h2> <br>
<br> <br>
<p class="update_date">Posted: 2022-01-29 (UTC+00:00)</p>
<p class="update_date">Updated: 2022-11-14 (UTC+00:00)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Anyone who cares about security may want to switch from systemd as soon as possible; its lead <h2>systemd Insecurity</h2>
developer doesn't care about your security at all.</p> <br>
<br> <p class="update_date">Posted: 2022-01-29 (UTC+00:00)</p>
<br> <p class="update_date">Updated: 2022-11-14 (UTC+00:00)</p>
<h3>Issue #0 - Against CVE Assignment</h3> <br>
<br> <br>
<p>Poettering:<br>
"You don't assign CVEs to every single random bugfix we do, do you?"</p> <!-- Table of contents. -->
<br> <h2 id="toc"><a href="#toc" class="h2"
<p>My thoughts:<br> >Table of Contents<a/></h2>
Yes, if they're security-related.</p> <ul>
<br> <li><a href="#issue0" class="body-link"
<p>Source:<br> >Issue #0 - Against CVE Assignment</a></li>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/5998#issuecomment-303782334" <li><a href="#issue1" class="body-link"
>systemd GitHub Issue 5998</a></p> >Issue #1 - CVEs Are Not Useful</a></li>
<br> <li><a href="#issue2" class="body-link"
<br> >Issue #2 - Security is a Circus</a></li>
<br> <li><a href="#issue3" class="body-link"
<h3>Issue #1 - CVEs Are Not Useful</h3> >Issue #3 - Blaming the User</a></li>
<br> </ul>
<p>Poettering:<br> <br>
"Humpf, I am not convinced this is the right way to announce this. We never did that, and half the <br>
CVEs aren't useful anyway, hence I am not sure we should start with that now, because it is either <br>
inherently incomplete or blesses the nonsensical part of the CVE circus which we really shouldn't
bless..."</p> <p>Anyone who cares about security may want to switch from systemd as soon as possible; its lead
<br> developer doesn't care about your security at all.</p>
<p>My thoughts:<br> <br>
CVEs are supposed to be for security, and a log of when they were found and their severity, so yes, <br>
it *is* the correct way to announce it. It seems as if over 95 security-concious people think the <br>
same.</p>
<br> <h2 id="issue0"><a href="#issue0" class="h2"
<p>Source:<br> >Issue #0 - Against CVE Assignment</a></h2>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/6225#issuecomment-311739869" <br>
>systemd GitHub Issue 6225</a></p> <p>Poettering:<br>
<br> "You don't assign CVEs to every single random bugfix we do, do you?"</p>
<br> <br>
<br> <p>My thoughts:<br>
<h3>Issue #2 - Security is a Circus</h3> Yes, if they're security-related.</p>
<br> <br>
<p>Poettering:<br> <p>Source:<br>
"I am not sure I buy enough into the security circus to do that though for any minor issue..."</p> <a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/5998#issuecomment-303782334"
<br> >systemd GitHub Issue 5998</a></p>
<p>Source:<br> <br>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/5144#issuecomment-276740654" <br>
>systemd GitHub Issue 5144</a></p> <br>
<br>
<br> <h2 id="issue1"><a href="#issue1" class="h2"
<br> >Issue #1 - CVEs Are Not Useful</a></h2>
<h3>Issue #3 - Blaming the User</h3> <br>
<br> <p>Poettering:<br>
<p>Poettering:<br> "Humpf, I am not convinced this is the right way to announce this. We never did that, and half the
"Yes, as you found out "0day" is not a valid username. I wonder which tool permitted you to create CVEs aren't useful anyway, hence I am not sure we should start with that now, because it is either
it in the first place. Note that not permitting numeric first characters is done on purpose: to inherently incomplete or blesses the nonsensical part of the CVE circus which we really shouldn't
avoid ambiguities between numeric UID and textual user names.<br> bless..."</p>
<br> <br>
systemd will validate all configuration data you drop at it, making it hard to generate invalid <p>My thoughts:<br>
configuration. Hence, yes, it's a feature that we don't permit invalid user names, and I'd consider CVEs are supposed to be for security, and a log of when they were found and their severity, so yes,
it a limitation of xinetd that it doesn't refuse an invalid username.<br> it *is* the correct way to announce it. It seems as if over 95 security-concious people think the
<br> same.</p>
So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here. I understand this is annoying, but <br>
still: the username is clearly not valid."</p> <p>Source:<br>
<br> <a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/6225#issuecomment-311739869"
<p>My thoughts:<br> >systemd GitHub Issue 6225</a></p>
systemd was the thing that allowed root access just because a username started with a number, then <br>
Poettering blamed the user.</p> <br>
<br> <br>
<p>Source:<br>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-311900864" <h2 id="issue2"><a href="#issue2" class="h2">
>systemd GitHub Issue 6237</a></p> Issue #2 - Security is a Circus</a></h2>
<br> <br>
<br> <p>Poettering:<br>
"I am not sure I buy enough into the security circus to do that though for any minor issue..."</p>
<br>
<p>Source:<br>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/5144#issuecomment-276740654"
>systemd GitHub Issue 5144</a></p>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<h2 id="issue3"><a href="#issue3" class="h2"
>Issue #3 - Blaming the User</a></h2>
<br>
<p>Poettering:<br>
"Yes, as you found out "0day" is not a valid username. I wonder which tool permitted you to create
it in the first place. Note that not permitting numeric first characters is done on purpose: to
avoid ambiguities between numeric UID and textual user names.<br>
<br>
systemd will validate all configuration data you drop at it, making it hard to generate invalid
configuration. Hence, yes, it's a feature that we don't permit invalid user names, and I'd consider
it a limitation of xinetd that it doesn't refuse an invalid username.<br>
<br>
So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here. I understand this is annoying, but
still: the username is clearly not valid."</p>
<br>
<p>My thoughts:<br>
systemd was the thing that allowed root access just because a username started with a number, then
Poettering blamed the user.</p>
<br>
<p>Source:<br>
<a class="body-link" href="https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237#issuecomment-311900864"
>systemd GitHub Issue 6237</a></p>
<br>
<br>
</body> </body>
</html> </html>