Quoting Russell Coker ([email protected]):

> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 04:01:45 AM Rick Moen wrote:
> > [a great deal of energetically missing the point, snipped]
> 
> No I'm just making a point that you want to ignore.

In that case, you were furiously attempting to refute an allegation
nobody made, while purporting to respond to my posting, in a manner
indistinguishable from either completely missing my point or
deliberately attempting to sidestep it while pretending to not have
changed the subject.

Let's pretend (as you do here) as if I'd been talking about the and its
ancillary and unneccessary daemons (hostnamed, timedated, localed,
logind, etc.) and utilities -- which I was not -- just for the sake of
discussion, and proceed from there to your  change of subject (which I
infer probably means you lack the background to discuss what I was
_actually_ talking about):


> > > The Linux kernel is much larger than systemd and has many more 
> > > interfaces to sources of hostile data.
> > 
> > The security problem primarily raised by systemd has very little to do
> > with the init or its ancillary and unneccessary daemons (hostnamed,
> 
> Which is still a minor issue compared to web browsers, MUAs, and other 
> programs which directly and predictably accept data from potentially hostile 
> sources.

I'm willing to wager AUS $100 about your inability to compromise root on
either my Linux server (which runs mutt for me) via compromise of my MUA 
or my copy of one-line Iceweasel on my Linux workstation, which you would
prove by revealing the contents of an ASCII file in /root called
'secret' .  I would place my workstation directly on completely
unfirewalled IP for the duration of this wager.  If you accept this
wager in principle, we would then set up a 7 day period for your planned
attack and root exploit of either host.    You would be required to
reveal in detail your application exploit and excalation path to root
authority.  I have taken no particular security measures and would not
do so for the duration of the wager.  If you fail, I would expect your
immediate tendering of AUS $100.  If you succeed, the reverse payment.

Hint:  Your much bigger problem than the theoretical ability to send
Internet-facing application software malformed input, the very
non-impressive, non-threatening history of which on Linux I discuss in
part on my personal FAQ pages concerning malware and Linux security, is
the escalation path.  

-- 
Cheers,                               "I don't need to test my programs. 
Rick Moen                             I have an error-correcting modem."
[email protected]                                         -- Om I. Baud
McQ! (4x80)                           https://thc.org/root/phun/unmaintain.html
_______________________________________________
luv-main mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main

Reply via email to